Owners Perspective | Fall/Winter 2014

Fall/Winter 2014 1

Prevention Through Design A New Way of Looking at Safety—and Sustainability

Project Leadership Silver Award WinnerOdegaard Undergraduate Library Renovation

Fall/Winter 2014

The Official Magazine of the Construction Owners Association of America

2 OwnersPerspective.org

Donley’s congratulates COAA on 20 years of supporting and facilitating the success of

construction project owners!

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT · DESIGN/BUILD · CONCRETE

Fall/Winter 2014 3

FALL/WINTER 2014 CONTENTSFEATURES

6 Project Profile Project Leadership Silver Award Winner: Odegaard Undergraduate Library RenovationCompiled by Chris Towery

17 Risk Management Hanging Out: Risk Management for Exterior FacadesBy David McKenna and Mark LeMay

20 Owner InterviewA Conversation with Jeff Galyon, AIA, Director of Property Developement and Information Technology, Knoxville Public Building AuthorityBy Randle Pollock

22 Sustainability Prevention Through Design: A Path to Social Sustainability By T. Michael Toole and John A. Gambatese

6

17

224 President’s Corner

12 Celebrating 20 Years of COAA : Giving Owners a Voice for Two Decades Compiled by Chris Towery

15 Owner AlertsBy John Sier

26 Commanding Project SuccessBy Chris Towert

29 New Members

31 Calendar of Events

31 Index to Advertisers

Fall/Winter 2014 1

Prevention Through Design A New Way of Looking at Safety—and Sustainability

Project Leadership Silver Award WinnerOdegaard Undergraduate Library Renovation

Fall/Winter 2014

The Official Magazine of the Construction Owners Association of America

5000 Austell Powder Springs Rd, Suite 217Austell, GA 30106

The official publication of

Cover: The newly renovated Odegaard Undergraduate Library at the University of Washington.Photo: Courtesy University of Washington.

Published By:

Mediaedge Communications, Llc3951 NW 48th Terrace, Suite 219Gainesville, Fl 32605

PresidentKevin Brown

General ManagerTrevilynn Blakeslee

EditorChris [email protected]

Graphic DesignerJen DiCapua

Senior Sales ManagerMaureen Hays [email protected] or call 877.234.1863, ext. 6717

Account ExecutivesWalt Daniels, Jennifer Siorek, Kevin Mizell

© 2014 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.

Magazine Editorial Committee

Lisa BerkeyPennsylvania State University

Randy PollockHDR

Dean McCormick Iowa State University

Stan ScottScott Consulting


President’s Corner

By Kevin L. Lewis, PE

This year COAA is celebrating its twentieth anniversary. That’s twenty years, the Big 20—a platinum celebration indeed! This is truly a tremendous accomplishment for our charter members, our current members, and most significantly, our industry. In November, we’ll assemble in Nashville for the 2014 Fall Owners Leadership Conference to celebrate this milestone, to look back on the last 20 years, and begin—or should I say continue—to look forward to the future of COAA and our industry.

So here’s the trivia question of the day, which is aimed mostly at those of you under the age of, um, 35: When you look at photos of architects of yesteryear, why do their shirts always have short sleeves, or if they have long sleeves, why are their sleeves always rolled-up?

Answer: It’s the dust! What dust, you ask? Computers don’t create any dust. Well, it’s lead dust, of course. That’s right—lead dust! Oh my, call the HAZMAT team!

For me, the last 20 years bring to mind changes in my career and this industry that I never dreamed possible. When I started out, we were just starting to transition into the technology age in which my children—and some of my staff members for that matter—have spent their entire lives.

My first job as a draftsman in an MEP design firm featured construction documents prepared with these really cool gadgets called “lead holders.” The dust produced by these manual utensils would choke the life right out of today’s automated design machines. In fact, between the dust and my three-pack-a-day-smoking coworkers, it’s a wonder I can still breathe. I should also mention that the drawings were a mere pittance of modern documents in respect to volume. We designed buildings that were built with the aid of dozens of drawings compared to the hundreds of sheets of paper required to mitigate potential litigation in our modern times.

I’m not trying to say that I long for the good old days or that those days were better. I’m just saying things are different now, and they will continue to change. That’s why COAA is so important. We are comprised of leaders in our industry, who will shape the future and help us all be successful in our careers, successful in our organization, and successful in building a sustainable environment.

So flag down the Pony Express, get out your quill pen and parchment paper, send a telegram or a smoke signal, place a collect call on your party line, dial-up your modem, follow us on Twitter, connect on LinkedIn, or like us on Facebook. Connect with us in whatever way you want—just be sure to register for the 2014 Fall Owners Leadership Conference by visiting www.coaa.org. Join us in Nashville for a celebration and learning experience unparalleled in this century or the last. I promise, you’ll be glad you did!

Happy Anniversary COAA!

Fall/Winter 2014 5

Nashville, TN | loews vaNderbilT hoTelNovember 19 – 21, 2014

FALL Owners LeAdership COnFerenCe

Lear

n.Lea

d.CoL

Labo

rate

.CeLe

brat

e.

20YEARS

6 OwnersPerspective.org6 OwnersPerspective.org

Odegaard UndergraduateLibrary Renovation

Project Leadership Silver Award Winner:

Owner University of Washington

ArchitectMiller/Hull Partnership

Construction ProfessionalMortenson Construction Company

Type of ProjectHigher Education

Delivery Method CM at-Risk

Project Details

Fall/Winter 2014 7

Seeing some 10,000 visitors daily, the University of Washington’s Odegaard Undergraduate Library is one of the campus’ most frequently used facilities. Over the library’s 40-year history, however, the building had reached the point where it needed a renovation in order to maximize its use of space and keep pace with changes in learning, technology, and energy use. Funding from the State of Washington provided for a partial renovation, with the requirement that all funding be utilized within two years. The renovation project focused primarily on the first floor, providing innovative and multiuse learning spaces, areas for students to work on projects in teams, reconfigurable casual learning spaces, and individual and group study spaces. The project also significantly altered the existing center atrium in order to create new learning space as well as to improve the quality of the space around it. Following the renovation, the 165,000-square-foot Odegaard library was transformed from what was once a dark and outdated facility into a new centerpiece for undergraduate education that offered a completely reimagined learning experience.

The project’s major work elements included the following tasks:

• Complete demolition and replacement of the existing central stairway to create new learning spaces on the mezzanine and first floor.

• Insertion of a new skylight in the roof area above the central atrium to transform what was a dark and uninviting space.

• Creation of two new innovative flexible learning spaces, which serve both scheduled classes and students seeking space for group or individual study. The spaces were developed on the “Active Learning” approach to classrooms and are technology-rich.

• Creation of new study rooms and areas with different ways to share information, solve problems, or work on team projects.

• Establishing a new Writing and Research Center, not unlike the “Genius Bar” in an Apple Store where one can get help on projects.

• Providing writable wall surfaces liberally throughout the first floor to allow group work on projects.

• Reconfiguration and expansion of the existing mezzanine to provide staff space.

• Enclosure of the existing non-code-compliant atrium on the third floor to both meet code and to enhance that floor’s function as a quiet study area.

Overall Project Management

The university’s project manager, Steve Tatge, instituted two instituted two key measures that directly led to the success of the renovation: 1) establishing that the project would be done in a culture of trust and collaboration among all parties; and 2) managing the determination of the project scope, so all stakeholders understood that early decision-making would be required—and once scope was established, there would be little tolerance for scope changes given the constraints

Tatge knew the project the project would require an Integrated Project Delivery approach in order to succeed, but as a public university, there were a number of constraints involved with how the project could be delivered. To this end, Tatge developed “IPD-ish” contract language, while still complying with public works laws and staying compatible with the portions of the university’s design and construction contracts which could not be modified.

To help ensure effective collaboration among the project team, the university made it clear in the initial Requests for Qualifications that the project would be a collaborative effort, and previous examples of successfully working in a collaborative fashion would be taken into account when the university chose

Compiled by Chris Towery


its team. While general expectations about collaboration were conveyed, rather than dictating how the final process would work, the university left it up to the eventual selected firms to determine the particulars. This led the firms to develop a “Collaboration Guide.” Although this guide was not a contractual document in a legal sense, it was signed by the university, Miller/Hull, and Mortenson, and it clearly shaped the behavior of the team.

The Collaboration Guide was wide ranging and addressed issues deemed critical to the team at a very detailed level, with points assigned to each criteria and the status tracked in weekly project meetings. The broad categories for points, with selected examples of individual goals to be measured, included the following items:

• Meet the Schedule: Milestones were set for completing master plan, construction documents, Owner reviews, substantial completion, and closeout documentation.

• Transition Smoothly: Move seamlessly from design and construction to occupancy, without regard for distinct phases. Examples included issuance of summer work bid packages, mobilization date, re-occupancy of library after summer closure, maximum 14-day resolution of punchlist items, production of electronic version of O&M data, and goals for staff and student satisfaction with the project.

• Maximize Value: Increase building efficiency and assignable area, while having alternates ready if buyout savings allow additional scope.

• Be Safe: Maintain zero recordable injuries.

• Be Thorough: Meet targets for change order rate, responding to RFI’s promptly, and minimizing re-punching items on the punchlist.

• Be Lean: Conduct pull-planning sessions for both the construction and design process, minimize rejected or resubmitted submittals, conduct “value stream-mapping” exercises to make RFI and submittal processes more efficient.

• Showcase the Project: Publish articles and present the project at conferences, publish a white paper on methods used to facilitate use on future UW projects.

• Have Fun: Offer multiple team-building events, including a fundraiser, where the team climbed the 76-story Columbia Center.

The Collaboration Guide became a powerful motivator for the entire team, especially since data was collected and reviewed in front of everyone. And beyond the desire to meet numerical targets, all parties—architect, engineer, contractor, librarians, and capital project staff alike—worked hard to not let each other down. This personalization of the work grew out of the culture that the university had initially established and was fostered by the guide’s detailed criteria.

To manage the development of the project scope, Tatge had the team agree on an overall vision for the newly renovated library and then determine which portions of that vision could be implemented within the project budget and

KitchAttorneys & Counselors

www.kitch.com

building a future?Don’t let construction or legal issues get in the way of your next developmentproject. Let the Kitch firm help you anticipate and resolve construction or legalissues that may arise – or better yet, avoid them all together.

Call John Sier at 313.965.2915 or email [email protected] to discuss your next move.

Happy 20th Anniversary from the Kitch firm!

Fall/Winter 2014 9

schedule. Further, the vision needed to be phased so that future phases would not require the ‘undoing’ of substantial portions of what had already been completed. While generally successful in this regard, the predesign study submitted to the State of Washington to solicit funding for the project did not have buy-in from the many campus stakeholders who use and operate Odegaard.

Further, the state provided only 80 percent of the funding requested, so it quickly became clear that the vision within the predesign study could not be achieved using the available funding. Consequently, Tatge convened a campus-wide “Working Group” to fully master plan the building and then determine what scope from this plan could be executed with the funds and time available. Tatge knew this could not just be an abstract exercise—real dollars needed to be ascribed to the various scope elements, and there needed to be a real plan to determine the most efficient phasing strategy. This effort took several months, but it was ultimately critical in getting the many stakeholders onboard with the project.

Having the construction partner, Mortenson Construction, selected early on was critical to being able to have realistic price tags for the scope elements and have feedback on how the elements could most logically be built. Mortenson worked with Miller/Hull to develop distinct options in a “shopping list” format that was conveyed graphically so it showed in a series of images what scope was included and what each option would cost. During this time, Mortenson’s Preconstruction Leader was often co-located in Miller/Hull’s office and was able to provide quick and steady input on strategies for realizing the Working Group’s vision.

For example, when the Working Group settled on a scope of work that was within budget and wanted to add a skylight to the existing atrium, the team quickly analyzed options for a skylight that provided the best combination of cost and daylighting effectiveness. The skylight cost was reduced to the point where the Dean of the Libraries was able to

supplement the project budget to be able to provide an element that all agree has been absolutely transformational to the project.

Project Scheduling: Once the project vision was established, Tatge realized that conventional project delivery methods would be unable to meet the schedule, so Tatge instituted a variety of timesaving measures that ultimately allowed the project to finish on time. The key step was holding a pull-planning session in which the full design and review process was planned “backwards” based on several fixed construction milestones. This was vital, since some of the work would require full closure of the library, and it was not acceptable for the closure to occur during the normal academic year.

The university had already planned to close the library during the less busy summer quarter of 2012, and this became the driver for both the design and construction schedule. Working backwards from when the steel needed to be onsite to erect a new stairway and mezzanine floor, the team worked to schedule bidding, shop drawings, design, permitting, and review, with milestones set for when the design team had to meet to complete design. Much of the design needed to be done out of sequence to suit the construction schedule, and Tatge had to ensure that stakeholders understood when and how the review process would work.

This scheduling approach required the use of “over the shoulder” reviews by university stakeholders, such as campus engineering and UW technology, to compress the cycle by which designs are reviewed and comments are addressed. Typically, university technical staff would be allowed two weeks to review


milestone documents and provide comments, which would be responded to by the design team and eventually resolved. The “over the shoulder” approach involved giving staff just a few days to familiarize themselves with the documents and then having a face-to-face meeting with their design and construction counterparts to explain the design, review issues, discuss solutions, and document the agreed-upon outcomes. This approach shaved months off of the project development schedule, while still maintaining document quality and allowing technical staff to ensure that the university’s requirements were being met.

Cost Management: Costs were carefully managed, from the overall project level to individual bid packages to scrutiny of change orders and management of contingency. The project had an ambitious scope for the amount of funding available, and the master planning effort was critical in matching scope with budget. The building was master planned top to bottom, and costs were then developed for a number of discrete scopes of work. The resulting data was presented as a shopping list from which the Working Group could choose.

The team worked very hard to execute the design and buyout within the target budgets, and responded quickly when individual bid package results varied from the

estimate. For instance, when one of the final remaining bid packages for casework came in substantially over budget, Tatge mobilized a response to review and reduce scope, modify design details in consultation with a casework subcontractor, and rebid the work while still maintaining schedule. Instead of pointing fingers at one another, the team quickly came together to develop a solution.

Another example of effective cost management was exemplified by the integrated process surrounding the design, fabrication, and construction of a reclaimed wood railing in the atrium. The Working Group considered the railing to be an important feature, but when early design options went above budget, it appeared that this signature element was in jeopardy. A collaborative effort on the part of Miller/Hull, Mortenson, and a subcontractor explored ideas for simplifying the fabrication and installation, and ultimately, Miller/Hull incorporated that advice into a design that could be pre-fabricated in sections and featured repetitive elements, all of which greatly reduced cost.

Quality Management: As a firm believer in the positive impact that collaboration has on the quality of the design and construction, the university encouraged the co-location of the contractor’s preconstruction leader in the architect’s office for a significant portion of the early

design period. This allowed for quick resolution of issues, advice on constructability and cost, and development of mutual trust and confidence. Similarly, the architect was tasked with providing construction administration staff onsite in the university’s trailer, which was immediately adjacent to the construction team. As in the design period, quick problem-solving, prompt development and resolution of punch list items, and a relationship built on trust all resulted and were a key part in realizing the challenging construction schedule.

Tracking and measuring a wide variety of data was done to a degree not seen on typical university projects, and the numbers were reviewed at the weekly team meeting in the presence of the library client. The regular public display of data was a key motivator for the entire team and drove the quality of many metrics to a very high level. This will become a regular practice on future projects.

Another innovation related to quality involved the design and procurement of the project’s mechanical system. Though the university is constrained by public works law in how it can deliver projects, the project manager sought a way to work with the design and construction team to compress the mechanical design from the traditional design-bid-build approach. The team used an approach in which the design engineer took the mechanical documents to 50-percent CDs, and then those documents were bid for both the mechanical installation and “finishing the design” under the supervision of the design engineer. In this way, the project received a competitively bid mechanical scope, but was able to get coordinated shop drawings in the same time it typically took just to get the construction documents.

Overall Project SuccessA number of factors contributed to the overall success of the project including:

1. Creating a culture of collaboration prior to the design and construction teams being selected, and then nurturing and maintaining it as the project progressed.

Fall/Winter 2014 11

2. Taking the time, in spite of a demanding overall schedule, to master-plan the library and then selecting scope elements from that vision that fit within the project budget. Integrating cost information with design graphics made choices easy for stakeholders to understand the complex set of options.

3. Establishing a wide-ranging set of measurable goals and reviewing their status with the entire team each week.

4. Taking new approaches on a variety of the “typical” ways the university delivers its capital projects, including expediting project technical reviews and doing early bidding of the mechanical scope to get integrated shop drawings in the time it normally took to complete the construction documents.

5. Having the contractor lead a pull-planning session to plan the design, permitting, and procurement process for the portion of the work that had to be completed during the Summer 2012 closure.

6. Working with library staff to minimize the impact of construction in an occupied library, while managing the expectations of library staff, so the construction team would not be overly constrained in their ability to do the work.

Project ComplexitySeveral significant factors made this project challenging, including:

• Funding provided was just 80 percent of what was requested

• Planned project scope was revamped to include a master planning of the library, with an eye towards future phases completing the overall vision

• Project needed to be master-planned, designed, constructed and occupied within two years

• Scope included creating new high-tech “Active Learning Classrooms,” which are suitable for both scheduled classes and informal study, and with which the

university had no experience

• The construction—and in turn, the design—needed to address a planned three-month library closure to allow heavy demolition and construction work to take place

• The bulk of the construction took place within a fully open library operating 24 hours a day, four days a week, and the majority of the day on the remaining three days

• A large campus cafeteria directly under the area of work remained open throughout the project

SustainabilityThough not a LEED project, a number of sustainable features were considered for the project, in keeping with the university’s national reputation for delivering sustainable projects. First and foremost, renovating a portion of the 40-year-old structure instead of replacing it is among the highest-impact sustainable decisions the university could make. By modifying what did not work well and keeping the ‘bones’ of the building, the university was able to maximize the value of the existing building, while still creating much-needed new program space.

The team performed detailed analysis of options for introducing a skylight into the previously dark center of the library, and this new lighting source is coordinated with the new lighting controls system to minimize the cost of the lighting. Additionally, high-efficiency light fixtures replaced existing lighting within the scope of the project, and this will further reduce energy costs. Concrete rubble produced by the demolition of the existing stairs was recycled, and all of the oak from the existing guardrails that were demolished was salvaged, re-milled, stained, and re-used in the new guardrail around the atrium. All rooms within the daylight zone of the building feature occupancy sensors to dim or turn off lighting depending on whether the room is in use. Finally, most interior materials and finishes comply with low or no-VOC standards.

For their superior project management, the University of Washington was selected as the winner of COAA’s 2013 Project Leadership Silver Award for the Odegaard Undergraduate Library Renovation. For more information on this project, visit www.blogs.uw.edu/ouglreno.


Celebrating 20 Years of COAAGiving Owners a Voice for Two Decades

Compiled by Chris Towery

Over the past 20 years, COAA has established itself as the voice for Owners of capital construction projects. Before COAA’s formation, no organization existed to promote and protect the interests of Owners, which put them at a distinct disadvantage. While architects, engineers, and contractors were represented and supported by their own professional associations, Owners were largely left to fend for themselves. COAA was established to fill this vacuum and bring balance to the construction process.

COAA’s founders worked tirelessly to get the fledgling organization off the ground and grow its membership to sustainable levels. After two decades, COAA has proven to be an invaluable resource for supporting Owners’ success in the design and construction of their facilities through leadership, education, and developing relationships within the industry. To celebrate COAA’s 20th anniversary, we’ve compiled this historical overview highlighting some of the organization’s memorable moments and offering insightful recollections from its founders.

COAA’s Inception

“Prior to 1994, my experience as a construction attorney led me to observe that although Owners were the ones who needed the project built and paid for every aspect of it, the Owner was generally less knowledgeable and less assertive than the other major parties. As a result, these other parties often took advantage of the Owner—much to the Owner’s detriment. I concluded that one of the reasons for this imbalance was that each of the other parties had long-standing associations (AIA, NSPE, AGC) protecting their interests, while Owners essentially had none.”

–Albert E. Phillips, COAA’s Founder

COAA’s Historical Milestones

1994 Albert E. Phillips launches COAA.

1995 COAA holds first conference in Nashville.

1996 Norm Neiterman elected as COAA’s first Chairman of the Board.

COAA’s website is launched, designed by Founding Director Ralph Giffin.

1997 COAA’s strategic plan developed.

1999 First COAA chapter started in Virginia headed by William (Bill) Letteri with City of Charlottesville.

COAA hires administrative support.

Norm Neiterman elected as first COAA president.

2001 First Project Leadership Award presented to Gwinnett County Public Schools in Georgia for the Norcross High School Project.

First issue of Owners Perspective published.

2003 First OTI course “Introduction to Project Management “ held in Scottsdale, Arizona.

COAA hires professional management company.

2004 COAA operations automated using Association Management Operating System.

2006 COAA’s website undergoes first redesign.

2007 COAA presents first Albert E. Phillips Scholarship.

COAA joins ConsensusDocs Coalition.

2010 COAA begins offering webinars as part of its education programs.

2012 OTI curriculum development and expansion begins.

Second redesign of COAA website.

2013 First full year of OTI courses, with four new courses launched.

2014 COAA turns 20.

COAA launches Chapter Affiliate Support Program.

Fall/Winter 2014 13

“In 1994, construction contracts generally favored the contractor at the expense of the Owner. Similarly, the A/E contracts also put Owners at a disadvantage. Our goal was to help Owners have more equitable contracts and balance costs, responsibilities, and outcomes more fairly between the three major parties: Owner, A/E, and Contractor.”

-Norm Neiterman, Harvard Medical School (Ret.), Founding Director and First President of COAA

COAA’s First Conference

“Our first full conference took place in Nashville in April 1995. It was truly a ‘first-of ’ event: it was the first full event of a brand new organization, and the organization itself was the first of its kind. Since there were so many variables and unknowns, we didn’t know what to expect. However, I knew that a lot of talented people worked hard to make it a success—and it was. The keynote speaker was retired University of Georgia football coach Vince Dooley, and he was well received. The substantive speakers were strong, the meetings were well attended, and at the conclusion we all felt that COAA’s meetings and efforts should continue. I slept well that evening!”

– Albert E. Phillips

The Early Years

“As president during those early years, my primary goal was to ‘get the word out’ to anyone and everyone we knew who were construction Owners. The Founding Directors personally contacted their peers around the country, presenting them with our literature and invitations to attend our conferences. We put enormous effort into putting together the bi-annual conferences, trying to select the best speakers and presenters we could find. We invited Owners, contractors, architects, engineers, lawyers, and others to speak and present to the group. We tried to have a good cross-section of all interested parties in the design and construction process.”

-Norm Neiterman

“When I was president, the overwhelming priority was keeping COAA afloat. Finances were tight, and conferences weren’t planned as efficiently as they are today, so the organization basically floated from conference to conference on a shoestring. Building membership to bolster conference attendance was definitely the biggest priority.”

–Miles Albertson, University of Florida, COAA President (2002–2003)

Educating Owners

“One of the primary missions of COAA is to educate construction Owners, so they have the knowledge and skills needed to deliver successful projects. COAA conferences have always been a big part of our education efforts, but COAA’s Owner Training Institute®, our website, seminars, and webinars are also really important resources. And now that OTI courses are offered in-house, we’re able to bring courses directly to your organization, so Owners can access our training programs without having to travel.”

-Norm Neiterman

“We pride ourselves in high-quality education-based conferences and other education initiatives to keep Owners up to speed with the latest techniques for designing, building, and managing construction programs. Our recent expansion of the COAA OTI® curriculum is exemplary of COAA’s vision of “Owners training Owners.” There is not another entity in the industry that provides this type of education, and it is vitally important to produce the types of people that are needed to sustain Owner intelligence in the industry.”

–Miles Albertson

Owners Perspective

“As president, one of my goals was to create a successful, self-sustaining magazine, which led to Owners Perspective. The board viewed the magazine as crucial: not only to getting the organization’s message out to Owners, but also to provide a much-needed voice for Owner’s concerns and points of

COAA By the Numbers

COAA’s membership at the time of first conference in 1995:

156 Owners, 15 Associates

COAA’s membership at the time of Spring 2014 conference:

1,603 Owners, 180 Associates, 8 Emeritus, 7 Honorary, 1 Educator, 6 Students, 1 Industry Association/Business League

Number of attendees at COAA’s first conference in 1995:

59

Number of attendees at COAA’s Spring 2014 conference:

260

Number of COAA chapters in 1999:

1

Number of COAA Chapters in 2014:

11

COAA’s Founding Director and first President Norm Neiterman.


COAA’s Presidents

1997 – 1998 Norm Neiterman, Harvard Medical School, Chairman of the Board

1999 Norm Neiterman, Harvard Medical School, President

2000 – 2001 Linda Glaza Herrington, Meijer, President

2002 – 2003 Miles Albertson, University of Florida, President

2004 – 2005 Bob Dillman, University of Virginia, William and Mary President

2006 – 2007 Jack Mumma, Michigan State University, President

2008 – 2009 Terry Cook, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, President

2010 – 2011 Boyd Black, University of Chicago, President

2012 – 2013 Ted Argyle, Ada County, President

2014 Kevin Lewis, Loudoun County Public Schools, President

view on construction issues. It was an absolutely wonderful experience to be part of COAA during its founding years, and I thoroughly enjoyed helping create Owners Perspective during such a pivotal time.”

-Linda Glaza-Herrington, Meijer, COAA President (2000–2001)

Making Connections

“Prior to the existence of COAA, many Owners were operating in a vacuum, not realizing all of their options to deliver construction projects. The personal and professional relationships made at COAA’s conferences and other events help to fill this vacuum by providing a much-needed connection to other Owners. These relationships are one of the most beneficial aspects of COAA membership.

–Miles Albertson

COAA’s Future

“The future of COAA is very bright. People will build buildings forever, so there will always be a need for COAA and what it has to offer Owners.”

-Norm Neiterman

“In the future, I think COAA will only continue to evolve, with a more geographically broad, diverse, and populous membership bringing constant improvement and innovation. Alongside

the continued evolution of technology in the design and construction of new buildings, COAA will continue to grow, gain knowledge, and pass that knowledge on to other Owners through education and the development of professional relationships.”

–Miles Albertson

The first issue of Owners Perspective.

An OTI course in progress at the Omni Houston in 2014.

Fall/Winter 2014 15

By Jon Sier

Owner AlertsThere are always legal developments that affect Owners and construction projects, and each development merits a detailed discussion to determine the significance of the local impact and on the broader stage. What worked on one project in a given year may no longer be feasible or even possible in the following year or in a different location. Even before a dispute arises, the participants to a construction project should always be aware of the legal environment in which the work is being done. It is too late to correct an erroneous assumption as to the law after a dispute has arisen. COAA is a great resource for staying current on industry practices and identifying the correct questions to ask to avoid assuming that a past practice remains correct. Construction lawyers bring this same value to a project, whether through allocating risk or assessing claims.

Massachusetts Court Holds that There is No Implied Warranty of Plans to a Construction Manager At Risk Many states and the federal government hold that an Owner impliedly warrants the suitability of the plans and specifications that are issued to a contractor in a design-bid-build traditional setting. In Coghlin Electrical Contractors, Inc. v Gilbane Building Company, Docket No. 2013-1300-D (June 24, 2014) the Worcester County Superior Court found that such a warranty does not apply to a construction manager who has provided design review services.

Following substantial completion of the project, subcontractor Coghlin Electrical Contractors asserted a claim for additional compensation against the construction manager Gilbane resulting from mismanagement of the project, including various design changes. Gilbane, in turn, asserted a claim against the Owner due to the design errors and omissions that were encountered on the project. The court examined the common law principles applicable to a design-bid-build project and found the underlying concept to be inapplicable.

Massachusetts adopted a law in 2004 authorizing public construction contracts using construction manager at risk “alternative delivery method” in which “a construction management at-risk firm provides a range of preconstruction services and construction management services which may include cost estimation and consultation regarding the design of the building project, the preparation and coordination of bid packages, scheduling, cost control, and value engineering, acting as the general contractor during the construction, detailing the trade contractor scope of work, holding the

trade contracts and other subcontracts, prequalifying and evaluating trade contractors and subcontractors, and providing management and construction services, all at a guaranteed maximum price, which shall represent the maximum amount to be paid by the public agency for the building project, including the cost of the work, the general conditions and the fee payable to the construction management at risk firm.” (M.G.L. 149A, Section 2). The court found that the construction manager by definition takes on additional duties and responsibilities for the project, especially when reviewing the particular contract language pertaining to estimating, design and constructability reviews [Note: The contract used by the State of Massachusetts was not based on an industry form agreement, but some of the language was very similar to that found in an AIA A133-2009, AIA A201-2007 and ConsensusDOCS 500]. In light of those additional responsibilities and greater involvement in the design process, the court found that the protections afforded to a general contractor in a lump sum bid are not available to a construction manager at risk.

Further, the court found that the indemnification obligations “arising out of or resulting from the performance of the Work” also encompasses claims asserted by subcontractors for defects in the design documents. In rejecting Gilbane’s arguments that the indemnification obligation was not intended to apply to this type of claim, the court construed the language of the indemnification provision very broadly resulting in a legally impossible “circuity of obligation”—requiring indemnification of one’s own claim. The court dismissed the construction manager’s claim against the state since the state would have been entitled to indemnification from the very claim asserted.

This may not be the last opinion in this case, and it was not issued by an appellate court, but it does provide some insight that there may be some limitations to the owner’s implied warranty of the designs when the construction manager is involved in reviewing and assessing the designs as a part of preconstruction services.

Contractual notice is still enforced by some courts as a condition for recovery Owners and contractors have occasionally encountered a contractual notice of claim provision that purports to have serious consequences for noncompliance. However, some courts have found exceptions to the application of the notice provision or found the strict application too draconian under equitable principles. However, two cases


in different parts of the country have enforced the notice requirement as a condition of pursuing a claim regardless of equitable arguments.

In JEM Contracting, Inc. v. Morrison-Maierle, Inc., the Montana Supreme Court found that a contractor’s notice 18 days after discovery of a differing site condition during which time the condition was disturbed did not comply with the contractual five-day notice requirement despite the assurances from the independent project engineer that the costs would be paid if other savings were achieved during the project. Galatin and Madision Counties awarded a road improvement contract to JEM Contracting in which Morrison-Maierle was the engineer. On the first day of work, JEM encountered a differing site condition, and JEM discussed the issue with the onsite engineers—not all of who agreed that the condition varied from the project specifications. The work and discussions continued for 18 days before JEM sent a written notice of the differing conditions under the contract. During the discussions, JEM claimed that the engineer assured JEM of payment if JEM could achieve offsetting cost savings. Upon completion of the work, JEM requested payment for the additional costs because the offsetting savings had been achieved. When the county denied the claim as untimely, JEM sued the counties as well as the engineer for misleading JEM. While JEM settled with the Counties, the engineer sought dismissal of the claims against it. The trial court’s dismissal was affirmed by the Montana Supreme Court finding that JEM’s failure to comply with the contractual notice provision was not excused by anything that the engineer said or did.

Similarly, the Michigan Court of Appeals in T.R. Pieprzak Company, Inc. v. City of Troy, Docket No. 314451 (June 24, 2014), found that the contractor on a water main replacement project performed extra excavation work to identify the location of the underground services that could have entitled the contractor to additional compensation as provided in the agreement, but the contractor failed to submit the labor and equipment rates to the engineer for approval before conducting the work as required by the unambiguous provisions of the agreement. That incorrect sequence barred the contractor’s request for additional compensation despite subsequent letters and conversations that may have even included varying interpretations of the provisions of the agreement or even constructive notice. The Michigan statute on differing site conditions at MCL 125.1592 actually confirmed the contractual sequence. In short, the agreement and the statute required the contractor who encounters a differing site condition to stop work, not disturb the physical condition encountered, and allow the owner to investigate the condition to make a determination of whether there is entitlement to an equitable adjustment of the contract time or amount.

The AIA A201-2007 at Section 3.7.4 and ConsensusDOCS 200 at Section 3.16.2 and ConsensusDOCS 500 at Section 3.18.2 contain provisions describing the same sequence of activities. Whether using an industry form contract or a more custom-drafted provision, be mindful of the notice

periods and sequence relative to extra work or differing site conditions so that the contractual protections allow the owner to make an informed decision pertaining to the possibility for additional compensation or time for performance.

Discovery of Construction Defects Starts Timing for Bringing Claims While the Owner may desire to avoid litigation, there are times where that may be the only option to preserve certain claims pertaining to defective construction. Waiting too long to commence litigation can result in the claims being barred—even though the Owner may not fully understand the nature of the claims or extent of the defects. In East Side Lutheran Church of Sioux Falls, South Dakota v. NEXT, Inc., the South Dakota Supreme Court found that whether the Owner waited too long to bring its claims of defective design and construction depend on when a jury finds that the Owner was on notice of the extent of the defects.

The church hired NEXT for the design and construction of an addition and renovation of the existing structure. Following substantial completion in August 2003, several problems were encountered, and many of the problems related to water infiltration. The church and NEXT continued to investigate the causes and attempt various repairs over the following years to the point in 2009 at which NEXT indicated that no further repairs would be performed. In 2010, the church hired a consultant who identified several design and construction errors pertaining to the water intrusion and other problems, and the church initiated litigation in July 2010, nearly seven years after substantial completion. NEXT asserted that the six-year statute of limitation barred the church’s claims; the trial court agreed and dismissed the lawsuit. The South Dakota Supreme Court agreed in part that the claims pertaining to water intrusion were time barred, but a jury needed to make the determination as to whether a reasonable and prudent person would have made further inquiry to discover other defects in design and construction. While the Supreme Court sent the case back to the trial court on that narrow issue, this illustrates that the time needed for investigation as to the underlying causes for defects.

Periods of limitations start from the date of accrual, which generally means the date on which the injured party know or should reasonably have known that there was a legal claim to be asserted for the injury or loss. Construction issues can lie dormant for periods before becoming apparent, or be intermittent or seasonal—all of which can extend the time period for discovery and investigation. However, those tendencies may not extend the statute of limitations in any given case. Even though the parties may be cooperating in investigating the cause of the problems and the likely solutions, the owner needs to be aware of the applicable limitations period so that decisions can be made with legal counsel about the appropriate actions to preserve any legal claims.

John Sier, with the firm of Kitch Drutchas Wagner Valitutti & Sherborook in Detroit, Michigan, is Associate Counsel to COAA.

Fall/Winter 2014 17

enclosure. Facades on older buildings may consist of load-bearing elements, such as brick masonry, natural stone, or terra cotta. Cement stucco may be used as an exterior finish over brick or rubble stone. Typically, these structures do not have an air space behind the exterior finish, nor a waterproofing plane within the wall system, nor control joints filled with flexible sealants. Embedded cast iron or steel members may be used to support and/or anchor projecting facade elements, such as cornices, and over-window, door, and other openings.

On newer structures, it is common to find facades comprised of many of the same materials as older buildings, but applied as an exterior veneer (i.e., non-load-bearing). Veneer systems must be tied securely to a back-up wall system, such as cast-in-place concrete, concrete masonry units (CMU), and wood or metal studs. Common anchors include corrugated metal ties, ladder or truss-type wire systems, and adjustable loop-type anchors. The anchors must be spaced properly in order to perform as intended. Cavity wall systems utilize a moisture barrier, flashings and weep holes to help direct any moisture that enters the wall system back out to the exterior. Vertical and horizontal control joints filled with flexible sealants allow the façade to accommodate differential movements. Steel angles are used to support the veneer system over façade openings, and, in some cases, at floor levels on taller structures to provide intermediate support.

In old and new structures alike, workmanship can factor into the performance of exterior facades. Voids in mortar joints, improperly installed veneer anchors, joint reinforcing installed too close to the outside edge of the joint, and inadequate control joints exemplify common deficiencies found in the construction of building envelope systems.

Despite the age or type of construction, the primary function of the façade system is to repel wind, rain, heat and cold, thereby separating the exterior environment from the interior

Hanging Out:

Day in and day out, building Owners and managers must deal with a wide range of building-related issues to keep their tenants happy and safe. Most of these are short-term, immediate needs, such as tripped circuit breakers or minor repairs to HVAC equipment, while others are planned maintenance items, such as filter replacement and window washing. Moreover, as building systems age, budgets must be adjusted to allocate funds for replacement and/or upgrading. While roofs and HVAC systems seem to garner the most attention when it comes to maintenance and repair, one critical building component tends to get overlooked on a consistent basis: building facades. However, failure of façade elements can be much more catastrophic than failure of many other building systems. Therefore, it’s vital that the risk associated with the possibility of building façade failure is adequately managed.

Realizing the risk involved, several large cities have enacted ordinances requiring a “critical examination” of facades on buildings taller than six stories or 60 feet. According to these ordinances, “up-close inspections” must be performed every five years on a representative sample of the façade by a qualified person (registered design professional), with written reports filed with the city. Unfortunately, the vast majority of municipalities, institutions of higher education, hospital districts, and other high-rise venues have no such ordinance. This means that their ability to address—or even prepare for—that sustained gust of wind or storm system that can peel a façade and drop it on an unsuspecting environment does not exist. Given this, it’s important that Owners are aware of exactly what these risks entail and know how to manage them.

Facade Fundamentals

Building facades are dual-purpose: they provide the visual aesthetics for a building, but more importantly, they work to repel the exterior elements to maintain a watertight

By David McKenna and Mark LeMay

Risk Management for Exterior Facades


environment. While the penetration of wind, heat, and cold may adversely affect the comfort of building occupants, moisture intrusion into exterior walls and facades creates potential dangers that must be understood and reckoned with. Leaks into a building are never a welcome occurrence, but it is the hidden effects of moisture intrusion that can create major headaches for Owners. Moisture intrusion can lead to several damaging effects:

• The deterioration of wood and gypsum-based building materials

• The development of mold on wood or gypsum-based materials

• The corrosion of metal anchorage, support and structural elements

• Freeze/thaw damage

Moisture intrusion into exterior facades does not always manifest itself as leaks into interior spaces, so it can often be overlooked. But failing to identify and rectify areas of moisture intrusion increases the risk of a potentially catastrophic failure, especially in multi-story buildings, and where facades abut pedestrian and vehicular pathways. In many instances, the failure or detachment of a façade element occurs without warning, despite the fact that observable evidence may have existed.

Risk Management

So how does one go about managing the risks associated with exterior facades? The following is a simple knowledge-based process that should be applicable to any singular structure or group of buildings:

1. Commissioning: On new construction projects, this process includes a review of the construction documents prior to installation as well as monitoring of construction activities to assure what is being built conforms to the documents. Proper performance of the structural, anchorage, and waterproofing components of the building envelope will help to minimize the potential for failure.

2. Know what you have: Retain copies of the original construction documents (drawings and specifications), along with any subsequent addition, alteration, or repair documents. The drawings, especially the exterior wall sections and details, will show the different components that comprise the exterior walls. In most cases, the specifications will name the materials specified for use in constructing the building.

3. Documentation and recordkeeping: Create a database of information for your building(s). You may already have something established for your HVAC system that can be expanded to include the building façade. Track maintenance and repairs, including what work was performed, when, and by whom. Include drawings, specifications, scopes of work, costs, etc. Several companies offer building maintenance and repair

software, or utilize a database program to customize your own recordkeeping.

4. Periodic inspections: Begin with visual inspections. Binoculars and spotting scopes are tools commonly used to inspect exterior facades. However, with older or more complex facades, periodic “up-close” examinations may be warranted. Cracks or missing mortar in joints, rust stains, spalled or broken brick or stone, split, and detached or missing joint sealants all are indications that moisture intrusion could be occurring. If deficiencies are observed, additional investigations may be necessary, and this can include infrared thermography, detection of metal ties, selective demolition, and/or material testing. Document the deficiencies, and prioritize the need for repair in conjunction with the potential risk of a failure. Use the information proactively to plan for maintenance, not only for next year, but for the next five years. Doing so should help to reduce the need for more costly (reactive) repairs.

Facade Failures

In some rare instances, however, due-diligent monitoring efforts may not be able to detect some potentially dangerous conditions. Such was the case on the night of January 15, 2012, on the campus of Texas A&M University-Commerce when a 12-foot x 12-foot section of brick veneer detached from the 13th floor penthouse level of a building constructed

Figure 1: Detached section of brick at the 13th-floor penthouse

Fall/Winter 2014 19

and at a county college both in North Texas have required repairs due to cracked and spalling brick units (Figure 4). Cast in four-foot long units with reinforcing rods grouted in the holes of the brick, the units are hung from steel relief angles. However, moisture intrusion through the brick veneer

coupled with improper flashing of the relief angle resulted in corrosion of the grouted reinforcing steel. The expanding volume of the corroding steel cracked the brick units, and eventually caused portions of the brick to become detached. The fact that this section of the façade was located over pedestrian walkways made the situation quite critical.

As a result of the unexpected failure at Texas A&M-Commerce, the University requested that other buildings on campus built in, or around, the same time be assessed by their engineering consultant. These investigations uncovered two other buildings where distress in the brick veneer was observed. Repairs were initiated immediately to prevent another sudden failure.

Future Framework

The comprehensive report generated by the building assessment process has been incorporated into the University’s risk management program of documentation, record-keeping and periodic inspections for all buildings on the Texas A&M-Commerce campus. Going forward, this due-diligent effort should provide a suitable framework for the management of risks associated with the exterior facades of the buildings on campus.

David McKenna is SSC Facilities Director at Texas A&M University-Commerce. David manages construction, renovation, and maintenance on the campus. He is a member of the Association of Physical Plant Administrators (APPA), the Texas Association of Physical Plant Administrators (TAPPA) and the National Association for College Auxiliary Services (NACAS). Contact David McKenna at [email protected].

Mark LeMay, AIA, LEED® AP is an Associate and Senior Project Manager with JQ in Fort Worth and leads JQ’s Facility Performance Group. Mark has been a registered architect in the State of Texas since 1982 and serves on the Board of Directors of the International Concrete Repair Institute (ICRI). He has more than 30 years experience in historic renovation and restoration, concrete and masonry repair, specialty waterproofing, and structural strengthening projects. Contact Mark LeMay at [email protected].

Figure 3: Corroded shelf angle

in 1968 and fell onto the parking lot below (Figure 1). High winds, which were estimated at upwards of 65-70 mph, triggered the collapse. Observations of the failed section of brick revealed the complete absence of brick ties in the upper portion of the wall (Figure 2). Identifying construction defects such as this would be akin to finding the proverbial “needle in the haystack.”

Fortunately, there were no injuries from this event, although there was a small amount of damage to vehicles. Investigations conducted on various sections of the façade also uncovered severe corrosion of brick ties, along with significant corrosion of the steel shelf angles at each floor level (Figure 3).

Engineering recommendations were quickly reviewed and implemented by University Administration. Over the next six months, work crews removed and salvaged thousands

of brick units, replaced corroded shelf angles, installed new stainless steel brick ties, flashing systems, mortar joints, and weep holes, to restore the structural and waterproof integrity of the exterior skin of the building.

While the Texas A&M incident involved a building from the ‘60s, more modern buildings constructed in the ‘70s and ‘80s are not immune to façade deficiencies. For example, suspended brick soffits on buildings at a major university

Figure 4: Cracked brick soffit units

Figure 2: Detached section of brick at the 13th-floor penthouse


A certified project manager and registered architect, Jeff Galyon has spent his career in the management of design and construction projects. Since 2002, Galyon has been working as the Director of Property Development and Information Technology for the Public Building Authority (PBA) of Knox County and Knoxville, Tennessee. Prior to that, Galyon worked for architects, developers, contractors, and Owners.

The PBA provides project management and property management services to the City of Knoxville, Knox County, and the Knox County School System. The Property Development group is responsible for managing capital projects ranging in size from $10,000 to $150 million. The Information Technology group provides telecommunications services to their clients and networking services to PBA internally.

Galyon holds a bachelors degree in architecture from the University of Tennessee at Knoxville and is a registered architect in the state.

We recently spoke with Galyon about COAA and his efforts to start a new COAA chapter in Tennessee. He also shared his thoughts and insights about the industry, what he’s working on at the Public Building Authority—and what he sees on the horizon.

On COAARandy Pollock (RP): How long have you been a member of COAA, and what prompted you to get involved?

Jeff Galyon (JG): I joined COAA in 2004 after having searched for an organization that focused on the owner’s perspective of design and construction. I was a member of the Project Management Institute at the time, but it was not focused enough for the work I was engaged in. I found COAA online and was most impressed by what I observed. I attended the conference that year in Nashville and became very excited about what I saw.

“COAA has been on the cutting edge of bringing the information to help us achieve better-informed decisions.” –Jeff Galyon

RP: How has your involvement with COAA impacted you professionally and personally?

JG: Through COAA, I’ve learned about several important changes that were coming to the industry, and this has enabled me to become a better representative of the interests of my clients. BIM and ConsensusDocs are just two examples. COAA has been on the cutting edge of bringing the information to help us achieve better-informed decisions. Having the ability to network with other Owner’s representatives has been invaluable to my development as an effective project manager and leader in my organization.

RP: We understand you’ve been working to start a new COAA chapter in Tennessee. Where does that effort stand now, and what are your hopes for the future?

LB: This organization most closely represents the Owner’s role in the design and construction process. My staff benefits from the professional networking and from the training programs provided for Owners’ project managers.

RP: What has been the most rewarding aspect of your involvement with COAA?

JG: We have been talking about trying to get a chapter going for several years, and this past year we made a decision to move forward on this, with the assistance of Brian Dobbs (an attorney at Bass, Berry & Sims PLC). I believe there are many Owners who can benefit from the exposure to COAA, and I will do my best to see that we get a chapter started. We have several people in our organization who are willing to support the chapter, but we need other Owners to join us to help the effort. We will be attending the COAA conference in Nashville, and we’ll use that opportunity to enlist more members to join us in getting the chapter off the ground.

RP: What would you say is the biggest benefit of belonging to COAA?

JG: The information provided at the conferences is one of major benefits of being a member of COAA—but far and

A Conversation with Jeff Galyon, AIA, Director of Property Development and Information Technology, Knoxville Public Building Authority

Building a New Chapter in Tennessee

By Randle Pollock

Fall/Winter 2014 21

away the greatest benefit is the association with other Owners who are going through the same issues that we deal with on a daily basis. Sharing successes and failures helps us all learn to do a better job. As an Owner’s representative, I believe this is truly unique to COAA.

RP: What do you see as the biggest challenges for COAA and the industry in general?

JG: COAA is still one of the best-kept secrets out there. For some reason, many Owners have not yet reached out to join the organization. We need to find a way to share our experiences in COAA with others. COAA is gaining importance in the industry, but there are many powerful organizations such as AGC and AIA, which still tend to guide the direction of so many areas. Membership growth in COAA will narrow the gap.

RP: What do you see as the role of COAA going forward; how do you see it evolving?

JG: I would like to see more member participation from the private sector. We are well represented on the institutional and governmental side. More growth from the private sector should help us to have a greater say in the direction the industry is taking..

On trends in the construction of public sector facilities RP: In terms of project delivery/construction-contracting methods, what are the most significant changes in the execution and implementation of your projects at the PBA?

JG: The PBA in Knoxville uses CM at Risk almost exclusively as our project delivery method. Although it takes more work on our part, it is one of the few delivery methods available to us that allow us to develop a partnership with the architect and CM. We will be changing over from our AIA contract documents to ConsensusDocs within the next year, which we believe will help us with developing the partnering approach to delivering projects, given that we are in the public sector and have procurement restrictions. We will continue to work to improve our skills in this area.

On what you are doing nowRP: How has the slow economy and funding uncertainty affected your work at the Public Building Authority?

JG: Our work has slowed greatly in the area of new construction. Most of the work we are seeing is renovation and/or maintenance type projects. The city and county have both been adversely affected—primarily by sales tax revenues. We normally see about $50 million annually in projects, but have dropped to around $30 million at present. We do not see a significant change coming in the next 3 to 4 years. We have downsized our staff and are working on smaller projects.

RP: Do you feel any need to emphasize “buying local/ regional”?

JG: We try to use local vendors as much as possible. Our experience tells us that the initial project is only part of the life

of the building and the need for follow up over several years is critical. Having to get out-of-town vendors/contractors to return or provide information can sometimes be a challenge.

RP: In the current marketplace, the number of firms pursuing a given opportunity with many clients has skyrocketed. How would you advise these firms to differentiate themselves to stand out from competitors?

JG: In this market, our biggest concern is the financial strength of the subcontractors and their ability to perform. Stressing performance on recent projects and their workload are two important factors. Their bond rating is also an indication of their strength.

On trends that are impacting the future of your organizationRP: What current trends (demographic, economic, cultural, etc.) are impacting the future of your work at the Public Building Authority?

JG: Working for the city and county, we have an ever-changing clientele every time an election comes around. Most of the offices are termed limited, so we know it is going to happen. This is our biggest challenge in consistency of workload, and we know it is going to happen on a certain cycle. We have learned to adapt to this, but it is still a challenge.

RP: How has your background shaped your understanding of the work Owners do?

JG: I’m a registered architect and have worked for construction companies in the past. I feel that I have a good perspective from both of those viewpoints. I have also worked for developers, which affords me the perspective from the Owner’s side of things. Together, these experiences have helped me become a better Owner’s representative. Having worked in the industry for over 45 years has also been a great benefit.

RP: With the proliferation of various technologies involved in every phase of the construction process, how essential is it for an Owner to have a strong understanding of those technologies and their applications?

JG: Having an understanding of the various technologies is important, but more important is having the good sense to seek help from qualified sources when help is needed. As director of Property Development and Information Technology, I rely on coworkers with expertise in telecommunications and information systems to provide guidance on a daily basis, while I manage the day-to-day activities of being the Owner’s representative.

About the InterviewerA member of COAA’s national Communications/Editorial

Committee since 2010 and active in the COAA Texas chapter, Randle Pollock is regional director for HDR Architecture (www.hdrinc.com). Based in HDR’s Houston, TX office, Randy can be

reached at 713-335-1949 and [email protected].

Building a New Chapter in Tennessee


Prevention Through Design: A Path to Social Sustainability

By T. Michael Toole and John A. Gambatese

Owners are well aware that facility design plays a critical role in achieving project goals for cost, schedule, and quality. However, fewer Owners realize that design can play a critical role in construction worker safety, and an increasing emphasis on social sustainability requires that safety be considered during the design stage of capital projects. This article will summarize and provide examples of an emerging safety management technique called Prevention through Design (PtD), offer reasons why Owners should be motivated to adopt PtD, and identify tools and processes for implementing PtD within in their organizations.

The PtD Concept

Prevention through Design, also called Design for Safety and Safety by Design, is defined by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) as, “Addressing occupational safety and health needs in the design process to prevent or

minimize the work-related hazards and risks associated with the construction, manufacture, use, maintenance, and disposal of facilities, materials, and equipment.” For Owners, PtD can be understood as explicitly considering construction safety in the design of a project, being conscious of and valuing the safety of construction workers when performing design tasks, and making design decisions based in part on a design element's inherent safety risk to construction workers. What it comes down to is constructability. Facility professionals routinely evaluate a design’s constructability for cost, schedule, and quality implications. PtD means evaluating a design for safety constructability. It requires that the design be evaluated to ensure it can be constructed as reasonably safely as possible.

The need for performing PtD is simple: construction is one of the most dangerous industries, and every professional associated with the design

and construction of a facility should be concerned about construction workers. In the U.S. alone, according to the U.S. Department of Labor, there are approximately 300,000 serious injuries and nearly 1000 deaths in the construction industry each year. But COAA members deal with numbers all of the time, and numbers can become sterile and devoid of meaning to us. Everyone needs to keep in mind that behind every injury statistic was a fellow human being who worked hard at his or her craft and had people who loved them. When we give presentations on PtD, we typically include a slide with pictures from a New York Times article on the death of a New Jersey construction worker. This young man was a husband and father who lost his life when the trench he was working in collapsed on him. His employer had been cited by OSHA for trench hazards several times before this accident. We show the picture of the young man’s body being removed

Fall/Winter 2014 23

from the trench by rescue workers to remind us that every injury statistic has a face, a name, and loved ones whose lives will never be the same.

PtD’s Tie with Sustainability

One of the most significant trends within the design profession is the increased focus on sustainability. Readers who have studied sustainability and/or sustainable development know that the terms do not refer solely to protecting natural resources, or “going green.” As depicted in Figure 1, sustainability is recognized by forward-thinking leaders as having three pillars or aspects. In addition to environmental sustainability, sustainability-minded professionals also consider the economic sustainability and social sustainability (or social justice) aspects of their organizations.

Figure 1: The three aspects of sustainability

In fact, those who have studied the origins and evolution of sustainable development know that the concept first gained international traction following a 1987 report commissioned by the United Nations. The now famous report by the World Commission on Environment and Development was titled “Our Common Future” and explained that sustainable development focuses as much on the needs of people as on the environment. The report made the case that organizations and nations had an obligation to consider the needs of future generations and other people who will be affected by a decision but can’t speak for themselves when the decision is being made.

PtD and Corporate Social Responsibility

Building on the report’s findings, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development defined corporate social responsibility (CSR) as “the continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development, while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as of the local community and society at large.” Given this definition, is there any more compelling application of CSR than making sure an organization makes a reasonable effort to ensure that not only their employees, but also employees working on a project associated with their corporation, all go home safely each night to their families?

A skeptical reader might be thinking, “Wait a minute. My management or stakeholders will not want me spending time thinking about the health and safety of anyone’s employees but my own.” Recent global events have proven such provincial thinking to be short sighted. Consider how quickly public outcry due to worker injustice and unsafe conditions associated with sweatshops, fair trade, and the Bangladesh factory collapse led to major changes in supply management. As Kmart, Apple, and others have experienced, many consumers will not tolerate improper working conditions within an organization’s supply chain. Owners should therefore ask themselves, “What might be the reaction of the public, customers, and stakeholders if they sense that we had not done enough to prevent a local worker from being killed on one of our projects?”

If we tie the concepts of corporate social responsibilities and ethical supply chain management back to sustainability, it becomes clear that for Owners being sustainable is not just being green. A sustainable Owner must ensure that its capital projects are considered sustainable in terms of the natural environment, economic viability, and social equity. As such, a sustainable Owner will recognize that it is neither ethical nor wise to be associated with a facility design that is not as safe as it could be for construction and maintenance workers. An ethical sustainable Owner will therefore want to implement PtD on its capital projects.

The Right and Smart Thing to Do

It’s important to recognize that PtD also comes with more direct business benefits: PtD is not only the right thing to do, but it’s the smart thing to do because it gives a lot of “bang for your buck.” Facility professionals know the most important decisions for influencing the cost, schedule, and performance of a capital project occurs during the conceptual and preliminary design phases of a project. As shown in Figure 2, while the costs incurred increases significantly once construction begins, the ability to control total project costs (and time and quality) diminishes rapidly after preliminary design. This same principle applies to safety. Safety professionals know that the inherent hazard level of a project site reflects not just decisions on how to use personal protective equipment (PPE) on site, but also on decisions made during conceptual and preliminary design that strongly influence what PPE is needed and how effective it is at preventing injuries.

The business case for PtD is made by the tangible, bottom-line benefits that result from its implementation. When hazards are reduced or eliminated by design, injuries and fatalities are reduced or eliminated. Reduced injuries and fatalities reduce workers compensation insurance premiums. For Owners using in-house construction crews or with Owner-controlled insurance programs (i.e. “wrap up programs”), financial benefits will be direct and immediate. For Owners without wrap-ups on their projects, worker’s compensation-related cost savings will accrue indirectly and gradually.

Prevention Through Design: A Path to Social Sustainability


Other examples of tangible but indirect benefits include increased productivity and fewer site delays. When design has reduced the need for PPE, fall protection, working in confined spaces, etc., workers can complete tasks faster and focus more on quality. Fewer accidents reduce the chance of the need for a safety stand down or an OSHA inspection. A final indirect benefit is the increased collaboration during design between the designers and constructors, which often leads to value engineering and better design quality.

While PtD is not widely used in the United States, it has been required in Europe for nearly two decades and is strongly encouraged in Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and various Middle Eastern nations.

Examples of PtD

Let’s give a few examples of PtD from building construction, starting with a common one: parapet walls. Parapet walls are often designed to be one- to two-feet high for aesthetic purposes. However, if a parapet wall was designed to be at least 39 inches high, it could serve as fall protection throughout the life cycle of the building, thereby eliminating fall hazards during the initial roofing installation as well as whenever workers are on the roof in subsequent years for HVAC maintenance or reroofing operations. This same principle can be applied to skylights. Rather than choosing a skylight model based solely on aesthetics and cost, an architect could choose a model that could withstand the dynamic load of a construction or maintenance worker, thereby preventing someone from falling through a skylight throughout the building’s service life.

Figure 2: Cost-Time Influence Curve. Source: Bechtel Corp.

Fall protection anchorage points are another common example. OSHA requirements dictate that an anchorage point must be capable of resisting a static force of 5000 pounds. There have been many instances of workers sustaining critical injuries when they tied their fall protection harness to something that ultimately proved incapable of handling their dynamic load. Why not have the structural engineer—who is most intimately familiar with the structural properties of the building and has structural engineering software at his or her fingertips—identify appropriate anchorage points at locations where they will be needed?

Many COAA members are aware that prefabrication is increasingly common on building projects due to its cost, quality, and schedule advantages. Prefabrication also can bring significant safety benefits. For example, prefabricated steel stairs, factory-poured concrete wall panels, and prefabricated plumbing pipe trees can reduce work at height or in confined spaces.

Implementing PtD within Your Organization

We have spoken to many facility professionals about the PtD concept. While most find the PtD concept compelling, some have found it challenging to implement within their organizations. Our research of Owner organizations who have successfully implemented a PtD program have indicated three steps are needed:

1) Establish a safety culture: Those who have studied organizational change know that such change does not occur if the organization’s culture does not support it or if top management is perceived to not be committed to it. Similarly, PtD will likely not work if employees do not appropriately value occupational safety at all times and for all individuals associated with their organizations. On capital projects, this means that safety must be given equal or greater priority compared to cost and schedule. Providing employee training on the PtD concept is typically required to ensure that PtD is recognized as being both the smart thing to do and the right thing to do.

2) Establish enabling processes: Figure 3 depicts an appropriate PtD process, which can be summarized as getting the right people talking about the right things at the right time. Each box is associated with a typical design review stage (0, 30, 60, 90-percent) and indicates who should participate in the design review and what should be discussed. Early

Figure 3: A PtD Review Process

Fall/Winter 2014 25

meetings identify and assess the severity of the hazards associated with the design to date and potential tools and processes for designing out unacceptable hazards. The various building materials and systems should be discussed early in the process, both to identify prefabrication opportunities and to identify potential substitute materials and systems that may be less hazardous. Using 3D visualization and 4D simulation can be helpful tools for planning, and both are facilitated by using BIM for design.

One of the challenges for the diffusion of PtD throughout our industry is that designers often do not know how to perform PtD. Fortunately, PtD design tools are freely available from government and private websites in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. The Construction Industry Institute has a PtD tool that can be purchased. One of the best examples of tools to help designers was published for steel erection by the National Institute for Steel Detailers and the Steel Erectors Association of America. This reference book, Detailing Guide for the Enhancement of Erection Safety, provides numerous examples of safety-related dos and don’ts for structural engineers and steel detailers.

Our research has indicated that several contracting methods and processes better enable PtD than traditional design-bid-build. Using a design-build or integrated project delivery method allows the necessary collaboration during design between designers and constructors. Qualifications-based contracting and negotiated or cost-plus contracts (versus low-bid) reduces the chance that a tightly bid budget will prevent safety management expenses from being cut from the project plan and budget.

3) Team with organizations who value project-wide safety: Owners know that most successful capital projects rely heavily on effective collaboration. The same goes for PtD. An Owner may have instilled an effective safety culture and implemented appropriate processes, but successful PtD requires partnering with designers and constructors who value safety, are open to change, and willing to collaborate during the design process. Many design firms are not yet experienced with PtD, so it’s critical that the designer Request for Proposal (RFP) identifies that PtD will be used and request information on the PtD experiences and capabilities of the design team. PtD could even be included as one of the selection criteria when choosing a design team. Similarly, the GC/CM RFP should require information on the GC/CM’s ability to collaborate with designers on safety and other project goals. Commercial and institutional Owners may find that designers and constructors with industrial and international project experience have had PtD experience on past projects.

What will you choose?

This article offers you an introduction to Prevention through Design and explains why it should be implemented in organizations that consider themselves progressive in regards to sustainability and corporate social responsibilities. The question is, what you will do with this information? One

option is to dismiss the information as being relevant only to your organization’s safety managers, but this would ignore the market trend that values safety throughout the supply chain and project life cycle. A better option would be to learn more about PtD (www.designforconstructionsafety.org and www.constructionsliderule.org are two good resources, and we promise you’ll find no advertising and will not be contacted when visiting), embrace this innovation that values human life, and demonstrate proactive leadership in moving forward with implementing PtD within your organization.

References

World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2000). “Corporate social responsibility: making good business sense.” Downloaded from www.wbcsd.org.

The Brundtland Report (1987). World Commission on Environment and Development—Our Common Future. New York: Oxford University Press.

Toole, T.M. and Carpenter, G. (2013). “Prevention through design as a path toward social sustainability.” Journal of Architectural Engineering, ASCE, 19(3), 168-173.

Gambatese, J., Behm, M., and Hinze, J. (2005). “Viability of designing for construction worker safety.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 131(9), 1029-1036.

Toole, T.M. and Gambatese, J.A. (2008). “The trajectories of prevention through design in construction.” Journal of Safety Research, special issue on Prevention through Design, Elsevier and the National Safety Council, 39, 225-230.

Toole, T.M., Gambatese, J.A., and Abowitz, D.A. (January 2012). “Owners’ role in facilitating designing for construction safety,” Final Research Report. The Center for Construction Research and Training.

T. Michael Toole is Associate Dean of the College of Engi-neering and Professor of Civil and Environmental Engi-neering at Bucknell University. A professional civil engi-neer registered in Pennsylvania, he initiated and maintains www.designforconstructionsafety.org. He writes exten-sively on construction safety, construction innovation, and project management.

John Gambatese is a professor in the School of Civil and Construction Engineering at Oregon State University. He has worked as a structural engineer and construction project engineer, and is a registered professional civil engineer in California. He writes on a variety of topics, including construction worker safety, Prevention through Design, sustainability, and constructability.


Commanding Project SuccessA Recap of COAA’s 2014 Spring Owners Leadership Conference in HoustonBy Chris Towery

This May, Owners from across the nation headed to Houston, Texas, for COAA’s 2014 Spring Owners Leadership Conference. Held at the luxurious Omni Houston at the Galleria, the conference packed a year’s worth of education and networking into its two-and-a-half-day duration. In fact, the Houston show proved so popular that the 260 people who showed up set a new record for COAA conference attendance. The event’s theme, “3-2-1 Liftoff: Commanding Project Success,” referenced Houston’s storied history with the space program, and its content was tailor-made to help Owners lead their project teams to the highest levels of success.

Preparing for the Future

With the capital construction industry in a state of constant evolution, one of COAA’s aims is to prepare Owners for the latest changes and trends impacting the industry, and Thursday’s opening presentation, “It’s 2024: Where Does Your Organization Stand?” was specifically focused on helping Owners ready

Fall/Winter 2014 27

themselves for the future. The session, which was presented by Ron Magnus, managing director of FMI’s Center for Strategic Learning, discussed how Owners can best position themselves today to take advantage of changes that will impact the industry in the next 5 to 10 years. From the globalization of the marketplace and the rapid advance of technology to the coming retirement of baby boomers and volatility of the economy, the session highlighted the importance of long-term strategic planning and explained what Owners should be doing to prepare for the next decade.

It can be challenging to conceive of planning so far ahead into the future, but the session outlined specific steps an Owner can take to ensure that its organization has a long-term vision that will endure and produce results for year to come.

“I found it motivating to see how other organizations plan for the future, like our military, which plans for decades ahead,” said Elizabeth Mahn, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for Ada County, Idaho. “As it relates to the construction industry, the presentation made me much more mindful of planning projects—not just for the next couple of years, but much longer term.”

Space Age Technology

Set in one of the country’s hubs for the NASA program, it was fitting that the conference included presentations covering the ways in which Owners can take advantage of the latest advances in technology. To this end, the event included multiple sessions on Building Information Models (BIM) and how such technology can be used not only for design and construction, but also for Facilities Management (FM). The

sessions “OK, I’m Using and Requiring BIM, Now What” and “BIM-to-FIM Sounds Interesting, But How Do I Get Started,” both offered valuable lessons from Owners who are utilizing BIM to capture data and integrate it into the operation and maintenance of their facilities.

“Prior to attending this COAA conference, I was completely unaware of the ongoing discussions regarding the potential usefulness of BIM for facilities management,” said Melanie J. Ford, Interim Director of Construction, University of Georgia Office of the University Architects. “I was blown away to see how it could be used to enhance data retrieval capabilities, and I was even more impressed to learn that there are already universities that have begun to implement BIM and incorporate the data within it into their facilities inventory information.”

COAA honored the 2014 Albert E. Phillips Scholarship winners during Thursday’s lunch.Pictured (L to R): COAA President Kevin Lewis—Loudon County Public Schools; Scholarship winner Rachel Sommer—Pennsylvania State University; Scholarship Committee members Becky Koller—University of Nebraska and Joe Sprys—National Heritage Academies. Not pictured: scholarship winner Ted Kilcrease—University of Arkansas.


With multiple sessions on BIM, the conference provided useful information for those Owners already well versed in BIM technology as well as offering tips for those just beginning to incorporate the technology into their projects.

“I was really impressed by all of the sessions covering BIM’s application for projects and facilities organizations,” said Shane Weissinger, CADD Manager at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.

“There were several nuggets of information that could be pulled into our conversations and discussed to determine validity for our environment. Every organization is different, so seeing the different approaches and lessons learned provided needed insight into what we may encounter.”

Designing for Safety

One highly popular presentation on Friday focused on a relatively new topic in the industry: Prevention through Design (PtD). Titled “Prevention Through Design: A Leadership Opportunity for You,” the session discussed how Owners should consider construction safety in the design of a project and make design decisions based in part on the design elements’ inherent safety risk to construction workers. The session’s speaker, Michael Toole, Associate Dean of the College of Engineering at Bucknell University, stressed that when designing a project, construction safety should be explicitly considered alongside more traditional design issues.

“What it comes down to is constructability,” said Toole. “Facility professionals routinely evaluate a design’s constructability for cost, schedule, and quality implications. PtD means evaluating a design for safety constructability. It requires that the design be evaluated to ensure it can be constructed as reasonably safely as possible.”

Because construction is one of the most dangerous industries, with about 300,000 serious injuries and nearly 1000 deaths occurring each year, the topic should be both a practical and ethical concern to Owners. During his session, Toole offered several common examples of PtD, described tools and processes for implementing it, highlighted projects where Owners have successfully embraced PtD, and showed how to overcome some common obstacles. For an in-depth discussion of PtD and its potential applications for your next project, check out Toole’s feature article in this issue on page 21.

COAA Owner Training Institute®

In the days preceding the conference, COAA continued with the expansion of its Owner Training Institute (OTI) curriculum by launching two new courses: Cost Management and Schedule Management. These two new courses, along with the previously launched course Project Management: An Owner’s Perspective, were held at the Omni on the Monday and Tuesday before the opening of the conference. Each course was conducted by COAA’s signature three-person team of instructors. The Project Management and Cost Management courses were led by an experienced Owner, along with an architect and contractor, while the Schedule Management course instructor team consisted of an Owner, contractor and attorney.

The rollout of these new training classes is part of a larger expansion of the COAA OTI® curriculum that will eventually include a total of 14 courses specifically designed to educate Owners’ project managers. The remaining three courses will be introduced in 2015.

Making Connections

Outside of the educational opportunities provided by the sessions and the OTI courses, another big benefit of COAA’s conferences is the

opportunity the events offer attendees to meet and develop relationships with others in their field.

“One of my favorite parts of the conference was meeting new people from the industry during the breaks and receptions,” said Heather McCarthy, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for Ada County, Idaho. “I think there is tremendous value in being able to discuss the different projects people are working on and learn more about their on-the-job experiences.”

Indeed, while the presentations provide an overview of many important issues facing the industry, the networking that’s available at the events gives attendees a chance to interact with other professionals who have first-hand experience with these topics. Such personal connections allow attendees to get much more in-depth perspectives on the conference topics and see how others are dealing with issues similar to the ones they’re facing in their own projects.

“By getting to meet other attendees, I was able to discuss different approaches organizations were taking related to BIM integration,” said Weissinger. “It’s apparent that a good number of COAA members are forced to feel their way around this BIM endeavor going on in the A/E/C industry. It does directly affect how projects can be delivered, and we need to know what to do to make sure we benefit from it beyond the project.”

For those members unable to make it to the Houston conference, the presentations are available on COAA’s website, www.coaa.org. To access these files, log in and select “Members Only Content” and then “Archives.” While you’re there, don’t forget to reserve your spot at the Fall 2014 Owners Leadership Conference, which will be held November 19-21 in Nashville.

When designing a project, construction safety should be explicitly considered alongside more traditional design issues.

Fall/Winter 2014 29

New MembersOWNERSAbilene Christian UniversityKevin J. Roberts

Accident Fund Holdings, Inc. Robert Saxton

Ada CountyElizabeth Mahn

Alachua CountyGreg Nuetzi

Austin Independent School DistrictBruce C. DavisRick Kaven

Breakthrough Developers, Inc.William H. Lockwood

Broward CollegeRobert BellotAntoine RabbatAngel Rivera

City of Round RockTravis Wilkes

Cook Children's Medical CenterRobert Weber

Dartmouth CollegeMatthew R. Purcell

DC Public LibraryJonathan BanksJeff BonvechioLisa DeanesMichael DodsonKim S. FullerChris Wright

Emory UniversityCarol AdameWayne AngelJody DiCarloJulie HaleRosemary M. MageeEarly MattGary MorrisFranklin ParkerChris PritchettRickey RayMerle Reed

Frederick County DPWSue Barthol

Darrell BuchananDavid EnnisJack HartnerCharles MasonCharles NipesDoug PearreTony PellegrinoRobert ShenKevin Vida

HighmarkJohn NorbutPaul L. Spence

Houston Methodist Hospital Michael CranfordMaggie A. DuplantisJames HicksJames K. LawsonCharles K. RothSidney Sanders

Jackson National Life InsuranceAgnes Arbuckle

John Carroll UniversityRich Bretz

Loudoun County Joe Kroboth, III

Maryland National Park and Planning CommissionRene AlbacateLynette Andrews-BakerHelen AsanJason BartlettAlexandria Bazemore-FosterCarol BinnsFaye BlakeTawanda BoozeChristopher ColvinLaura ConnellyRamona CrawfordSelassiei DouglasPamela GravesLynn GulleyAshley HaymondBenita HendersonBrenda IraolaDennis JohnsonFrancis KangJeffrey NewhouseEileen NiveraNkemka Onuma

Raymond PalfreySurendra PradhanClaro SalvadorVilen SchwartzBrian StewartPaul SunHassan SymesPaulo ValerioMartin Weinrich

MD Anderson Cancer CenterPhil DurbinKen EvansAlison HartmanCurtis LewisLucy NyeElizabeth PhillipsMichael PrejeanMark Serhus

Methodist Health SystemTodd BurnsAlisa CarlsonWilliam MarshallJeff SchroderMichael SmithDenton Wilson

Michigan State UniversityLynda BoomerLaurie BrinkerBrandon CharlandKemel DawkinsDanny FrancisGaston GosselinKenneth GottschalkKane HowardSinem KorkmazJohn LeFevreChristine LockwoodPhuong NguyenWenda NoferaKristin PennockDon SchaferChris SchutCherie ShormanAndy SmithEarline SolomonMatt SyalBerkay BT TasciogluRichard TempleDanielle TurnerJason VanzeeTressa WahlDeena Whitbeck

Dr Scott WhitterDave WilberNick Wilk

Northwestern MedicineDonald ColbertEric FicketTim St. ClairSusan Stiber

Oregon Health & Science University HospitalScott Perala

Oregon State UniversityJohn Gremmels

Parkland Health & Hospital SystemAmanda ArredondoSamantha DeCiccoSusan FrederickMelv RaindleMichael Roe

Penn State UniversityEd GannonNate PatrickDoug Wenger

Public Building Authority of KnoxvilleDeryn Kellogg

Signet Enterprises LLCSpencer Hyatt

Stanford University School of MedicineLinda GibsonDavid GoldenVivian JonesJill KnappLiam RobinsonLinda ShinshiroBrian SullivanAnnette Walter

Sutter Health Facility and Property ServicesJames D. Pease

Texas A&M Health Science CenterJohn FellersJoe Fix

Towson UniversityScott Guckert


University of FloridaFrancisco Oquendo

University of Houston Shibani BanavaliKimberly BurksEmily EldridgeBob EudyBobby GalvanTerry HawkinsShannon JonesTheron MathisKatherine MillerKen OliverJohn PoschKenneth TolbertSusan VailMike Yancey

University of IllinoisQu Kim

University of Maryland Baltimore CountyThomas MyersMallela Ralliford

University of Maryland Medical SystemDavid Noji

University of Maryland College Park William ClarkeSean Daugherty

University of North Carolina CharlottePhillip M. Jones

University of OregonDorothy AttneaveRob BastoSuzanne DodgeEmily EngMelanie JacksonTeri JonesKatrina LoganimoceGlen MacdonaldChristy McBethMartina OxobyJustin PorterAmy SalmoreKevin SpahnDenise StewartJanet SvenssonWanita TiburcioDan Wectawski

University of PennsylvaniaEric M. Weckel

University of Texas Medical BranchChuck AndersonBryce BurkettMichael DohertyDavid HernandezMark MaderaRaymond MoralesLarry Glenn OwensJacquelyn PicardNilesh ShahBridget Tarcha-GarzaJames VictorJim WalkerStephanie WhiteJacob Wolf

University of Texas SystemPatrick CaseyPhil CondraTarek Thomas

University of VirginiaJohn Jones

University of WashingtonJeff AngeleyCurtis BainGarett BuckinghamAndy CasillasBob DillonAmy EngelSteve FolkRon FoutyDave HadawayAshley KangasJon LeboEric McArthurSandy McCraeAlan NygaardJohn PalewiczRoss PouleyTroy Stahlecker

UNT Health Science CenterBrian Jordan

Virginia Tech University Monte Hager

Wake Forest UniversityKeith Callahan

Western Michigan UniversityConn Macomber

WestfieldEmery Molnar

Westminster ServicesSteve Cook

Wilbur-Ellis CompanyEric JenksJesse Perkins

ASSOCIATESAustin CommercialEd Bittner

Bodman LLPGary Reeves

BrandtCurtis Harbour

Brasfield & Gorrie, LLC Erik Sharpe

Clark Nexsen, PCBill Nash

Complete Property Services, Inc.Mickey Johnson

Design Organization, Inc.Victor Ritter

FKP Architects, Inc.Ardis ClintonJames KendrickCynthia Walston

Ford Nassen and BaldwinGeorge Baldwin

Garza Program ManagementRichard GarzaRichard Harris

HDRJeffrey P. Johnson

Holland & Knight LLPGregory Meeder

JE Dunn Construction, Inc.Donnie Lindstrom

JQ EngineeringMatt Connor

MultivistaMark Oldenquist

Oswald CompaniesPaula Selvaggio

Pepper Lawson Construction CompanyChad Craft

Pioneer ConstructionChris Beckering

Plan Check Associates, Inc.Judy Williams

Poole Anderson ConstructionStephanie L. Schmidt

RTKL Associates, Inc.Sarah Bridges

Terminix International Company, LPMichele Vance

The Beck Group Tom D. Woods

The Whiting-Turner Contracting CompanyJack DaSilvaDaryl Steinbeck

Thornton TomasettiCarol Post

Venn-CorpAlan J Watson

WorkingBuildings, LLCJohn McFarlandTiffany Ollanove

INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION/BUSINESS LEAGUELean Construction InstituteDan Heinemeier

STUDENTSMontgomery CollegeMichael Clair

Fall/Winter 2014 31

Calendar of EventsIndex to AdvertisersAGC of America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside Front Cover

COAA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Donley’s Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Outside Back Cover

Kitch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

COAA-TX CHAPTER FALL WORKSHOPSeptember 8-9, 2014

Radisson Hotel & Suites Downtown AustinAustin, TX

OWNER TRAINING INSTITUTE: PROJECT CLOSE OUTSeptember 10, 2014

Penn Stater Conference Center HotelState College, PA

COAA-PA CHAPTER FALL WORKSHOPSeptember 11, 2014


OWNER TRAINING INSTITUTE: PROJECT MANAGEMENT: AN OWNER'S PERSPECTIVESeptember 12, 2014


COAA-BALT/DC CHAPTER FALL WORKSHOPSeptember 30, 2014

Johns Hopkins UniversityBaltimore, MD

COAA-GA CHAPTER FALL WORKSHOPOctober 1, 2014

Loudermilk CenterAtlanta, GA

2014 FALL OWNERS LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE November 19-21, 2014

20th Anniversary Conference. Loews Vanderbilt HotelNashville, TN

2015 SPRING OWNERS LEADERSHIP CONFERENCEMay 13-15, 2015

Hilton BaltimoreBaltimore, MD

2015 FALL OWNERS LEADERSHIP CONFERENCENovember 4-6, 2015

Green Valley Ranch Resort and SpaHenderson, NV (Las Vegas)

KitchAttorneys & Counselors

2014 COAA Corporate Sponsors


CM-BIMFor AEC professionals, the AGC Certifi cate of Management—Building Information Modeling (CM-BIM) isTHE certifi cate credential that denotes knowledge and understanding of concepts related to BIM.

“See Construction Differently”

Register For Your Courses Today and Earn Your CM-BIM!

www.AGC.org/BIM

CM-BIMCERTIFICATE OFMANAGEMENTBUILDING INFORMATION MODELING

Documents

Owners Perspective | Fall/Winter 2014