Integrated Project Delivery

Case Study on Integrated Project Delivery: Autodesk AEC Solutions Division Headquarters Case Study

By: Kyle Miller

“Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) leverages early contributions of knowledge and expertise through the utilization of new technologies, allowing all team members to better realize their highest potentials while expanding the value they provide throughout the project lifecycle” (http://www.aia.org/contractdocs/AIAS077630). Thus the owner Autodesk Inc. conducted a key selection process to find an architect/builder team to work together in the early involvement of the Autodesk AEC Solutions Division Headquarters in Waltham, Massachusetts. There was another team that was the front runner but did not want to follow IPD arrangement so Autodesk declined them. The Architect chosen was KlingStubbins and the Builder was Tocci Building Companies. The proposal visibly specified the owner’s direction in terms of scope, budget, sustainability goals and the mandated form of agreements. “They were chosen because of their qualifications, familiarity with the local markets, BIM and LEED sophistication, and willingness to abide by a true IPD agreement” (http://www.klingstubbins.com/about/pdfs_ articles/ Jan_01 _10_AIA_IPD%20CaseStudies_Autodesk.pdf). Also they were selected due to the aspect in their proposal was to allocate fees and incentives within a fixed project budget. Furthermore there were three subcontractors that selected to work in this group of the architect and builder and included in the risk/reward structure. 

The Autodesk building was finished under budget by $116,000 which was split between the IPD team.  This team was consisted of an owner, designer, builder with three subcontractors for drywall, electrical, and MP/FP; that means that every business walked away with roughly by $19,400.

Multi-party contracts include owner, architect, and builder in the IPD contract. Several other subcontractors and trade contractors were put into the agreement, from mechanical to drywall. The design team did include agreements outside of the IPD agreement. Structural and Lighting designers were among those included in the outside contract with the design team. By contract, three levels of collaborative teams were established to manage the project. A Project Implementation Team (PIT), A Project Management Team (PMT), and a Senior Management Team (SMT). (PIT) was set up to handle the day-to-day issues of the project. The composition of the PIT included project participants whose work at any given time could impact the project’s outcome. (PMT) was established to manage the project and make decisions by consensus. (SMT) for issues that cannot be resolved by the (PMT)

Three parties were involved in making sure this project went smoothly the names of the organizations were project implementation team (PIT), project management team (PMT), and senior management team (SMT).The project impertinent temptation team was responsible for the everyday issues. This works great to thing on track. Also keeps the pressure off the other two teams. The project management team was responsible to look over the project implementation team to make sure area thing is going as planned. Project management team was also representing the owner and he architect. They were able to make decisions to make sure the project stays on task. The senior management team was over the other two teams to make sure everything goes as planned and the project is on task and to make sure the owner is happy.

The parties waived all claims against each other except claims against fraud, willful misconduct or gross negligence.  Disputes where resolved through the parties under mediation and arbitration.   Each party was required to hold insurance but with provisions that policies that no right of subrogation existed against the other parties.

Contract spelled out specific criteria used to judge success.  The criteria included schedule and budget, sustainability, quality of craftsmanship, functionality, and design quality.  The owner, architect, and builder jointly selected comparable projects in the Boston area to serve as benchmarks against the goals.  The head of the construction team was worried about whether the design quality would be met; forcing him to act as the builder and go out of his way to make sure that sufficient budget was allocated for quality materials and detailing.  In the end the team had exceeding design expectations and received incentive money.