Alternative Project Delivery Defined
Design-build, design-assist, IPD, hybrid approaches—what’s the difference between each of these delivery methods and how do owners determine which approach is right for them? Join Govan Brown President Colin Gray, Structure Tone New York Executive Vice President Stephen Soviero, Layton Construction Vice President David Burton, and LF Driscoll Vice President Ed Hanzel as they compare their experiences leveraging alternative delivery models in markets across North America.
Colin GrayPresident, Govan Brown
Stephen SovieroExecutive Vice President, Structure Tone New York
Ed HanzelVice President, LF Driscoll
David BurtonVice President, Layton Construction
Welcome to Building Conversations, a construction podcast powered by the STO Building Group on today’s episode, president at Govan Brown, Colin Gray is joined by expert builders from across North America to discuss the future of project delivery. Tune in as David Burton, vice president at Layton Construction, Ed Hanzel, vice president at LF Driscoll, and Stephen Soviero, executive vice president of Structure Tone New York, share their experiences and lessons learned leveraging alternative delivery methods.
Colin Gray (00:43):
Welcome to today’s episode of Building Conversations presented by STO Building Group. On today’s episode, we will be speaking about alternative construction management delivery models, primarily design-build, design-assist, and integrated project delivery. To get started, we’d like to introduce our panel. First of all, my name’s Colin Gray. I’m the president for Govan Brown. Govan Brown is the Canadian arm of the STO Building Group. We have offices all across Canada. I’ve been with Govan Brown for just over 16 years and have experience on multiple design-build projects primarily on corporate interior fit-outs. I’ll turn it over to Stephen to introduce himself.
Stephen Soviero (01:24):
Hi everyone, Stephen Soviero, executive vice president for Structure Tone New York. I have over 34 years of providing real estate project construction management services to clients on a national and global basis.
David Burton (01:37):
I’m David Burton. I’m with Layton Construction. I’m vice president and justice market leader nationally. I’ve 39 years in the industry. I’ve worked coast to coast, including Hawaii and the Caribbean. I serve on the national board of directors for the design-build Institute of America and also recognized as a DBIA fellow.
Ed Hanzel (02:01):
Hi, my name’s Ed Hanzel. I’m a vice president with LF Driscoll. I’ve been in construction management for 34 years. The last 26 of those doing exclusively healthcare projects, and most recently was project executive for a large 1.5 million square foot hospital that used the IPD contracting method for its execution.
Colin Gray (02:31):
Well, thanks guys. Appreciate you all being here. And obviously, we have a panel of experts, so we’re really excited to have this conversation. So, let’s get things going just to get us started. I’ll go through a bit of an overview of what we’re going to be discussing today. First, we want to just describe the differences between design-build, design-assist, and IPD delivery models. IPD for those who don’t know is integrated project delivery. We’re going to speak about why our clients choose these delivery models, whether it’s speed to market, risk transfer, any other factors, how STOBG can use these delivery models to drive value for our clients. We’ll speak about challenges and the learning curve associated with the change in mindset because these types of delivery models are much more collaborative than maybe a more traditional construction management approach. So, there’s certainly some challenges to the learning curve about that. How STOBG can manage and reduce risk on these projects. And then finally we’ll get into some recent case studies. So, let’s get things started here guys. So the first question for a panel, let’s explain the difference between design-assist, design-build, and IPD. Let’s get started with Ed.
Ed Hanzel (03:39):
Well, Colin, the big difference between IPD and design-assist is that the owner and the key trade contractors in an IPD agreement really share the risk and the success of the project. And it’s because of that multiparty agreement, they tend to be more collaborative and exhibit collaborative behaviors earlier in the project. The IPD project creates greater transparency of cost throughout the project, and really the contract promotes more collaboration, mutual respect, and trust between the parties of the contract.
Colin Gray (04:13):
Thanks, Ed. Dave, can you speak to the difference between design-assist and design-build and target value design?
David Burton (04:20):
Yes. Typically, it’s on the contract format and who holds what responsibility of course in design-build, the design team and the contractor are tied together and contractually share that risk. In integrated project delivery, the owner is – it’s a triple party agreement, owner, contractor, and designer. And in construction management at-risk or design-assist, it can be managed the same as design-build. It’s a matter of when the construction manager is brought on board, and this delivery method, as any delivery method, comes down to the team members, but in design-assist, the owner actually holds separate contractors for the designer and the contractor, which has a tendency for contractors to like, because they feel like they have less risk not holding the design contract. However, it puts the owner in a position of having to facilitate issues. If they do arise in scope, issues between the designer and the contractor create more exposure for the owner.
Colin Gray (05:33):
Thanks, David. And, you know, there’s more than one way to approach these delivery models as well. I’d like to speak briefly about what we’ve called a hybrid design-build. We’ve recently completed a project with a client up here in Canada, where we entered into a design-build agreement. However, the owner held the design contract all the way through the completion of design development. So they had full control over the design itself and then the designers and the consultant team were transferred over and assigned to Govan Brown where we took them on from there on. So that was more of a risk transfer agreement. We were responsible for making sure that the drawings through construction documents were all coordinated. And you know, we were responsible to make sure that any of those coordination issues were picked up as part of our design-build fees. So that was a bit more of a hybrid design-build where less control on the design, but more of a risk transfer for the owner. So there are a few different ways to approach them, but thanks guys for your answers there. Next question here. So, there’s been a recent increase in IPD and design-build project opportunities across many of the STOBG business units. Why have many of our clients decided to explore alternative contract delivery models? So, Stephen, why don’t you kick us off here?
Stephen Soviero (06:46):
Sure. Well, clients, in general, are always exploring new delivery methods. And what we’re seeing is a lot of sophisticated clients have been reevaluating the lays of consultants looking to put their trust in a proven strategic partner. By doing so they get more control through the early engagement, engaging all the consultants up front at the inception of the project. Basically, there’s no RFP at this point, these consultants are all selected. Another big issue naturally is the speed to market and reduction in schedule. What does that equate to? That equates to savings and time and naturally money. Complete budget transparency again equals enhanced cost and schedule certainty and predictability in real-time. You spoke a little bit earlier Colin about single source contracting design-build, the risk is transferred from the owner to the design-builder.
Colin Gray (07:37):
Thanks, Stephen. Ed, can you jump in here and add some comments?
Ed Hanzel (07:41):
Yeah. So, with my large healthcare client that I recently performed the IPD project, I had previously been involved in probably about $800 million worth of GMP-type contracts. And although those projects went very well, when it came time to build this flagship project, they were looking for a couple key things. They wanted to reduce the amount of change orders and really more importantly, take themselves out from being the middleman in disputes between the CM and the architect as it came to design and scope. So, they were also looking for an opportunity to be innovative and be innovative early in the project. We’re looking for this target value design versus value engineering. You know, they wanted to be able to be involved early in the design so that they could spend the money in the design process where they thought it was most important to them. I do see a lot of owners really want IPD but there’s trepidation from their senior leadership where they don’t really want to take that risk. That leads to more of like the, you hear the term IPD light, but really without that IPD contractual relationship, it’s really hard to get that behavior.
Stephen Soviero (08:56):
Something to add also Colin, a big issue we’re seeing now is the supply chain. So again, with the supply chain happening today, over the last year due to COVID, a lot of clients are starting to really look at this different delivery approach.
Colin Gray (09:10):
That’s a great point, Stephen. And I think that’s obviously an important consideration for our clients on design-build. It’s a risk reduction for the clients and one throat to choke, so to speak where they have one individual entity to be responsible for it. So those are certainly some good insights there, guys. The next question here, how can STOBG drive value for our clients on design-build and IPD projects? David, why don’t you kick us off here?
David Burton (09:36):
Okay. Colin, as Stephen mentioned in this post-COVID world, we’re all concerned about the supply chain issues and with design-build and IPD, Ed mentioned target value design, we can put together an early budget. We can work with the client to establish priorities. You know, what’s more important to them as far as different facets of the project, establish a budget for that area of work that’s appropriate and associated with the rest of the project, giving us target value so that we can work with the design team, work with subcontractors and come up with products that meet that pre-established design target value design gives us an endpoint. We establish a budget that’s workable for the client, work towards those line item budgets that we can establish early and determine level of product, but target value design. It’s an offensive move. We’re, we’re working towards an end
David Burton (10:39):
that’s acceptable to all. You know, everybody talks about value engineering. Well, typical value engineering comes in after the fact. You’ve already made a run at the design and the budget, and quite frankly, it hasn’t worked. So now you’re working backwards to redesign or reestablish a level of material, which is costing you time and effort. And with target value design, as we can do in design-build and integrated project delivery, we stay on course. We always know what the budget is, where we’re headed and can keep that client satisfied and keep them part of the product in the system that will give them a successful project.
Colin Gray (11:23):
Yeah. That’s a great value-add for our clients. No doubt. David, Stephen, and Jeff, some comments that you might want to add in here?
Stephen Soviero (11:28):
Yes, I do. Again, I think it’s important. The client gets to select and build a team leader. We like to call it the single point of contact. That’s someone with a lot of experience, not only with construction, but design and engineering, AV furniture. So, they’re the leader and that’s really the value-add when you’re on the design-build type contract. Also, the ability to identify and mitigate future risk very early in the process again, by having this team involved early on, we have all the consultants gearing towards the same goal. And again, it’s transparent. I know Dave and Ed had mentioned it, but it is cost certainty and value design versus value engineering. What does that equal it’s hope it’s most equal, no surprises down the road. Early subcontractor packages confirm of scope and buyouts are done very early on during the design process, which that normally doesn’t occur. Also by having a code consultant board with the design team very early on, we’re able to do code analysis and obtain permits very early on.
Stephen Soviero (12:29):
So again, it’s a time savings and it’s a no surprise savings. One other thing by having everybody involved early on is going directly to manufacturers for purchasing and pre-purchasing more so than ever. Now, do we need to pre-purchase all design items, whether it be lighting, mechanical equipment, ceiling tile, office fronts. A lot of times what we’ll do is bring in a vendor, and again, we saved about three or four weeks because they do the shop drawings and they become the design documents for bidding and for construction
David Burton (13:01):
And Stephen, I think that’s a good point. I think we also have to recognize that supply chain isn’t the only issue. We’re all recognizing a shortage of labor coming into the market and the early involvement of those subs and suppliers that you mentioned. There’s more and more pre-fabrication resulting in the industry to try to minimize labor in the field that can help us all hold delivery, hold product and hold schedule. So I think it’s important that we work with those substance suppliers early and talk about prefabrication as much as possible.
Stephen Soviero (13:39):
I think to add one thing more, you brought up now that we’re, you know, we’re into this inflation world. I think the cost predictability in real time is important because what we’re seeing in the market is week to week, month to month inflation of material. So we’re able to report that back to our client and maybe lock in some cost early on.
Colin Gray (13:57):
That’s a lot of added value there. Guys. I know we spoke about target value design and early reporting of inflation and locking in cost, so you have some reduced cost value to the client and then also mitigation of schedule risks. That’s a lot of value that we can add to the client. So those are some great answers. I really appreciate that. Okay. Next question here. So alternative contract delivery models require many project stakeholders to have a shift in their mindset and approach to facilitate a successful project. As I mentioned in the intro these are a lot more collaborative than you might see with the traditional CM-at-Risk or lump sum tender job, where people are a bit more adversarial. These contract models are a lot more collaborative. So, could you guys discuss examples and lessons learned on how this has and has not been successfully achieved? Let’s start with Stephen.
Stephen Soviero (14:45):
What I’m noticing is the ability to select our DB partners. Let me just say, not every project is for design-build or IPD and not every architect and engineer is capable of doing a design-build project. So, the ability to select those partners early on is very important. Having a knowledgeable team leader, driving and managing the team, I think really adds a lot of value. So the client is dealing with one individual who’s controlling the whole design-build team. Some of the things that I want to talk about as far as some of the, I’ll say, cons is change, you know, just in general, it’s very challenging getting clients, consultants, vendors to change their mindset. So there’s a learning curve. It’s almost a rewiring of the thought process from traditional delivery to design-build. And quite honestly, I see that change and that rewiring happening with not only architect’s engineers, other consultants, but also contractors.
Stephen Soviero (15:39):
So again, I think having that spark or that team leader constantly going over lessons learned and keeping the team on point is very important. Also, when you’re dealing with some of these larger financial institutions, they have many internal departments that struggle with the speed to market and required decision-making. You know, you’re dealing in procurement, who’s not used to this whole sourcing thing. So again, it’s the ability of the team to really educate the client and procurement and all these internal groups on how these delivery methods are going to be beneficial for them in the long run.
David Burton (16:15):
Yes, Stephen great point. I think you can’t underestimate the importance of the mental shift that Colin alluded to. There’s a new level of trust that’s required, you know, for us old dogs that have been in the business for a lot of years and grew up in –
Stephen Soviero (16:32):
Speak for yourself, Dave <laugh>
Colin Gray (16:33):
David Burton (16:36):
I’ll dive under that bus
Stephen Soviero (16:38):
David Burton (16:39):
But you know, we grew up in a claims world that was defending that low bid and scope issues and owners that weren’t willing to facilitate between the contractor and designer and in this market with design-build or with integrated project delivery, it takes a new person. It takes a trust level. That’s the one bad apple thing. You know, all it takes is one guy to not comply and you create friction and you create an attitude, adversarial attitude. So we have to trust each other. It’s the only way that this can be successful. And you need to, as Stephen alluded to, it’s important to pick the right team to pick the right company contractor and people that are working on that team and make sure that they have the ability to trust, to speak openly and communicate constantly.
Stephen Soviero (17:32):
To add, it’s also a shift I mentioned in mindset, but what we’re seeing in the world today naturally with MWDE and diversity spends, getting those procurement and those internal folks involved with our teams very early on. A number of our projects, we set up weekly meetings to make sure that we had outreach to the MWDE and diversity contractors. So we’re actually doing this very early on in the process where that wouldn’t happen until the project went out to bid.
Ed Hanzel (18:02):
Yeah, large IPD project that I just completed for the most part, the people involved in this project had very little to no IPD experience. So it was a new shift for all of us. And we talked about trust. So here we are, co-locating in an office together, approximately a hundred people from six or seven different firms, all of a sudden getting together, we had to learn to do a lot of things quickly. So team building activities early in the project were really important. We did personality profiles and it was fascinating to learn and understand how different people think, you know, we’re primarily engineers and we get in a room with a bunch of architects working day to day and realizing that they kind of process information a little differently than we do learning how we can react and act together in a meeting and how people think and process information.
Ed Hanzel (18:55):
You know, we also had to have facilitated team building exercises, things like that. Social team building activities were really important for us and lean trainings, you know, learning some of the lean techniques and things like that, that help you shift that mindset, learn about each other, gain trust in each other. A unique thing on the project we did is we went in as a team and competed for this IPD project. And it was a team composed of two architects, two engineers, and two construction managers as a joint venture, we created a team identity with a name and that name was the way each of us kind of introduced ourselves. We were part of that team as opposed to our individual companies. So, we kind of were able to do a lot of things socially in through team building to change that mindset, gain trust in each other. And it proved to be pretty successful
Stephen Soviero (19:53):
Ed, to add to that, you know, we did the same thing with the team building. We created a logo for the four consultants that were on board very early. So, if anything, they felt like one team, one unit, part of it. And it showed with the correspondence back and forth as they always say, there’s no “I” in team. Well, it was truly a team.
Ed Hanzel (20:12):
Yeah. It can be pretty powerful. We had team huddles every week in which the entire group would get together. And part of this co-location space, we had the big room we called it, would get together. And each of the components of the team had a little report out, you know, so we’re always communicating together as to what we were doing and kind of holding each other accountable. It’s pretty powerful.
Colin Gray (20:32):
Yeah. That’s some great insight guys. And one thing, Ed, that you mentioned there about the personality assessments, that kind of rings true to me. I know on our design-build projects, we had to look inwardly. It’s some of the challenges that we had communicating with the architect, because as you said, we think about things and we communicate things and we react differently. So, what we did as a lesson learned after kind of getting through our first major design-build project is we hired a design manager on to work with our team. She’s a salary employee of Kevin Brown, but her job is to liaise with the consultants and liaise directly with the architects because she can speak their language. And, you know, it’s proved to be a good measure for success. It allows for more smooth communication. And if we’re treating the consultants, like we would treat maybe one of our subcontractors, she puts us back in line and, and <laugh>, you know, we’re able to, to operate better as a cohesive group.
Ed Hanzel (21:25):
Yeah. And you can also take these different for our leadership team and figure out which each person’s strengths are and combine all those strengths together. And it makes for more powerful than a single leader.
Colin Gray (21:36):
Yeah, no doubt. No doubt. Okay guys. So next question here, the alternative contract delivery models, particularly design-build include a significant transfer of risk from the owner to the design-builder. How can STO BG manage and mitigate this additional risk? So, let’s start with David.
David Burton (21:54):
Yeah. Colin, as we’ve kind of alluded to throughout this discussion under design-build and integrated project delivery, the contractor is taking on the design within their team. And the issue is, and problem is a lot of these contractors don’t understand how the design process works or understand their true ability to complete work. The amount of time it takes to complete work as a practice, contractors tend to over commit and architects tend to under commit. So it’s a good reason to get us both together and work it out. But the key part of any team, especially for a contractor is to include a design manager within your team. You need to include that person on the contract team that understands the design process and helps us not overcommit on the timeframe that work can be done and to better understand and manage that process so that we are working at a schedule that we can maintain, not making false promises, that just gets the whole team in trouble with the owner.
David Burton (23:07):
And also, it helps the process in understanding with the client to better understand, you know, when is it that we need to set that GMP. The more information we can develop, the more drawings we can include, the better the price is. The more we can exclude contingencies and allowances and with more information. And I understand that that some clients need an early budget need an early commitment, and we can work with that. And especially with a design-build team or integrated project team, you’ll be having those discussions with the client and explaining to them, it’s see-through. We’re open book on how the budget comes together. They understand what the contingencies are for, what the allowances are for, but the less drawings that we have, there’s going to be more concerns, more contingencies, more allowances, and having someone that can manage that design, help the contractor understand true timeframes, help explain what the client, those timeframes we can mitigate exposure for us and help that relationship with the client.
Colin Gray (24:18):
Thanks, David. Stephen, do you have anything to add here?
Stephen Soviero (24:21):
Sure. And again, we’re saying it in a lot of different ways, but I’ll just preface it by saying it’s constant communication. Not only with the client, but with also the consultants, but more importantly, the vendors and subs at a very early stage in the process, transparency, you know, Ed, you mentioned team building. It’s very important to get that established with the design team. Again, clearly defining the scope of services for all consultants, cost, and responsibilities from the inception, through the completion of the project. We touched upon the master agreement. Having that master agreement in place very early on puts everybody at ease. You know, all the terms and conditions are incorporated into all the consultant contracts. Again, no surprises.
Colin Gray (25:05):
Exactly. Exactly. Okay guys. Well, this insight has been absolutely wonderful. I know we do have a few case studies that we’re going to run through now. Just due to client confidentiality, we’re not going to name any clients, but we would like to bring our audience through a few different case studies for some recent design-build IPD projects that are either in-flight or recently completed. So Ed, we’ll turn to you next. You have a hospital IPD case study to speak to.
Ed Hanzel (25:29):
Yeah, I’m going talk about, it’s a large healthcare project, about a million, a million and a half square foot hospital. $1.2 billion in construction costs. Some characteristics of this place, it had 504 patient rooms each, exactly the same—all ICU compatible rooms, 47 or interventional procedure rooms, a 61-bed ED, 690 car below-grade parking garage. And it was in a true IPD contract with an IOA, the duration of the project from start of putting the team together until the end was seven years. They moved in last October. So, we’re nearing the end of the one-year warranty period, which will be able to close out the IPD contract and probably realized some, some savings on the project. Some real lessons learned in this IPD project, the entire team, including the owner co-located in the 24,000 square foot office.
Ed Hanzel (26:34):
We had nine key trade subcontractors as part of the team. Target value design was heavily, heavily utilized to keep the project in budget with design. Extensive mockups on this project, including the construction of a 50,000 square foot Styrofoam mockup of one half of a patient floor that was then looked at and kind of simulations done by my client to figure out the pros and cons of the design. And then by the end of the project, we blew that up and redid it and were able to maximize the design for them. Offsite manufacturing, and pre-fabrication was an initiative from the beginning. We built our own pre-fabrication facility that we built 504-bathroom pods, probably about 300 multidisciplinary MEP racks. And then also some other miscellaneous, multidisciplinary systems. The key lessons learned IPD really requires an involved and invested owner that you know, is willing to do what it takes to stay involved in the project.
Ed Hanzel (27:40):
Make key decisions when you have to, IPD takes trust from all parties acting in the benefit of the project and not themselves. We learned, like Steve and Dave said, it’s not comfortable for everyone. Not everyone that was on the project was comfortable working on it. And the team agreed to quickly move on from them. It’s a large early financial investment and resources. One of the biggest things I took from it is that design and the CM team were very collaborative in our key trade contractors, but how to infuse this collaborative mentality to the actual tradesmen in the field, which is, I think the next step we need to figure out an IPD is how we can better get this collaborative environment in the field.
Colin Gray (28:27):
That’s great, Ed, thank you for that. Appreciate the insight into your case study. So, our next case study is from David Burton, a case study of a corrections facility, David.
David Burton (28:38):
Thanks, Colin. Yeah, most of the time with a justice project, you’re dealing with some agency, either city, state, or county. And this is a situation, our lesson learned was that there is no stakeholder that isn’t important. And you need to understand that if you want true success at the end of your job, we were doing a county facility that had five county commissioners. And one of those commissioners as a lot of folks did not want a correctional facility in her neighborhood. It was on the main drag of our town. And she was very concerned because all of the facilities on that main drag were very similar in appearance. So with design-build, being open and collaborative and communicating, we knew that we could power by this one commissioner that we would always get a three to two or four to one vote from the commissioners and basically be able to do what we needed to do, but that’s not the attitude that we took.
David Burton (29:42):
We worked to understand this commissioner’s concerns and needs, and her recognition that the appearance of this project was important. And we came together as a design-build team and designed a project that basically hid a 1200-bed jail behind an earth berm. And the exposed structure looked like every other structure in that neighborhood, and we were able to take a commissioner that was, was adamantly opposed to this facility. And to have her be the first one to stand up at the podium at the ribbon, cutting and claim it to be the first jail that could be in better homes and gardens. We listened to her, we understood, and ended up being a great reference for a lot of years. So, the lesson learned is, you know, no matter who they are as a stakeholder, make sure that you hear their concerns, make sure that you understand the priorities of each and every stakeholder. And try to incorporate that and appease that in every project. I know it can’t always be successful but make an effort, don’t blow by or ignore stakeholders because, you know, you can get around them or you know that you’re going to have the vote anyway, there is no stakeholder not important, and there is no better way to deal with that opposed person than design-build and integrated project delivery where you’re having constant open and continuous communication.
Colin Gray (31:16):
Thanks, David. And you know what, it’s a shame that this is an audio-only broadcast because it’d be great to be able to show the folks the photo of this correctional facility, because you’re absolutely right. Turned out beautiful. And no surprise that that county commissioner was quite pleased with the result. So, I have one last case study. So this is for a financial institution. There’s a 1 million square foot office fit-up where we had joint ventured with another construction manager in our market. The project consisted of eight, three-floor workplace ecosystems. So a two-floor auditorium, very high-end auditorium and conference facility, executive C-suite floor, executive hospitality floor. There’s a welcoming center, a flagship bank, retail branch, three commercial kitchens and interconnecting stairs throughout. So, as you can understand from that description, it was quite a complex project. This was a hybrid design-build contract model.
Colin Gray (32:10):
I described that earlier on this in this podcast where we assumed the prime consultant or the prime consultant was assigned to us rather at the end of design development, which allowed our client to maintain complete control over the design. And then of course transferred the risk of the construction documents to ourselves and our joint venture partner and the design-build team. Interesting thing about this project was we converted the project to lump sum pre-tender at a Class A budget. This was at the request of the client. They were looking for some very early cost certainty so they could establish some of their working budgets. So we were able to do that, took some risk off the client, add some risk to us, but it was something that we were willing to do. Some achievements of the design-build. We really developed a strong working relationship with the prime consultant and because of our role, there was quite enhanced coordination during pre-construction, similar to what Ed had mentioned earlier about his IPD team.
Colin Gray (33:08):
We developed a big room as well. We didn’t completely co-locate, but we had space for all of the consultant team for hoteling stations. So, when we had meetings, we would typically have the consultant team stick around for the rest of the day. And we’d all work together in the same area, which allowed us to really build some relationships there. Having that enhanced coordination, we insulated our client from consultant coordination, change orders, because of course, those were the responsibility of the design-builder through the project. And we were able to minimize those through the course of the construction, some of the challenges, those internal coordination change that I’d mentioned, they were the responsibility of the design-builder. So we did have to absorb those in the project contingency. So through the course of the project, we manage that very closely to try to keep a cap on that and not go over our contingencies.
Colin Gray (33:56):
One thing I am proud to say is this project was quite successful. We just received occupancy on the top floor of that building last week, which is wonderful news. We’re very proud of our team. And we’re under a negotiation for the second phase of this corporate campus, which is another 700,000 square feet. Very excited, this client was extremely happy with the design-build, the hybrid design-build model, and we’re going to be moving forward with that same model for the second phase. So that’s the last case study and that wraps up this episode of Building Conversations by STO Building Group. I’d like to thank all of our panelists for their time today. Really appreciate all the insight and your knowledge about design-build IPD. Hopefully our listeners were able to learn a thing or two on this. And if anyone does have any questions about it after listening to this, we’re all free and available to speak to you folks. Thank you very much.
Thanks for listening to Building Conversations for more episodes like this. You can find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Audible, and the STO Building Group website.