4specs.com    4specs.com Home Page

Delegated Design Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

4specs Discussion Forum » Archive - Specifications Discussions #2 » Delegated Design « Previous Next »

Author Message
(Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 05:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Anyone on the list using MEP specification sections that establish performance criteria when Owner/Contractor elect to go "Design Build" for these portions of the work? What has been others experience with this method of delivery - it has been spotty in our office, more bad than good.
Wayne Yancey
Senior Member
Username: wyancey

Post Number: 123
Registered: 05-2005
Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 03:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

It is standard practice in my marketplace.

Examples include curtain walls, window walls, guardrails, exterior wind and axial loadbearing light gage metal framing, fire suppression systems (sprinklers).

Experience has been more or less postive. Nothing that would cause us to stop using this methodology.

Wayne
(Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 03:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Looking specifically for examples of MEP - not architectural scope of work. We have no problem with the latter, only the former.
Nathan Woods, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: nwoods

Post Number: 82
Registered: 08-2005
Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 11:37 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

In my opinion, design-build MEP generally works well, viewed from the clients perspective.

However, for the architect, there are a few challenges. In my experiences with this method, the d/b field crews have been excellent, and the built work performed well. In contrast, the design effort has been lacking.

Challenges are many, but essentially these few come to mind as repeat issues:
1. The client will pay the architect a "coordination fee" to work with the client's d/b MEP firm(s). As a result, the client's focused expectations for a "coordinated" set of drawings are very difficult to meet. This is compounded by d/b entities that can be a bit under responsive. Often not attending meetings, not meeting deadlines, etc... As stated above, the field crews have been really good, but the office side of things is tremendously overworked, understaffed, and difficult to extract meaningful cooperation with. It is not uncommon for one mechanical systems engineer in a d/b firm to have 15 or more active projects at a time.

2. Electrical: Lighting, data, telecom coordination are a few areas where design-build electrical raises real challenges. If your project has any degree of specialty lighting, or you care what your fixtures look like, you may experience a challenge delivering it to fruition.

3. It seems ironic, but getting design-build MEP to coordinate with specialty trades, such as design-build telco, is really hard. The primary reason that I can identify is that none of them work for you. That tenuous tie of working for the architect is broken, and getting effective coordination and responsiveness is very much harder.

But at the end of the day, CD's are usually delivered faster, cheaper, and because the d/b firms have more risk, there are fewer change orders for the client. Again, for clients, d/b makes a lot of sense, but for architects, it's not so good. For an architect's liability policy though, it's great :-)

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration