1150

G. WILLIAM QUATMAN, from page 9

and, in fact, has ancient roots. Going back 4,000 years, to the days of pharaohs and pyramids, shorter human lifes- pan, and the decades it took to build monumental struc- tures, the original designer would never see the project’s completion. Even during the Renaissance, it was never expected that the original designer would oversee final completion. Architect Leon Battista Alberti remarked in the 15th century that, “The brevity of human life and the scale of the work ensure that scarcely any large building is ever completed by the same man as begins it.” An example of early bridging is the great cathedral in Florence, Santa Maria del Fiore, whose original design was the combined work of architect Giovanni di Lapo Ghini and a competing master mason, Neri di Fioravanti. In 1366, the two designers built huge scale models of their designs for a competition. Fioravanti’s design was chosen with its unprecedented 143-foot wide dome. His technical submittal was a scale model, 15 feet high and 30 feet long – tall enough to walk inside. The cathedral took decades to construct and each year the cathedral’s architects and wardens were required to place their hands on a Bible and swear an oath that they would build the church exactly as the model (the bridging document), portrayed it. The project was later completed by another master builder, Fillipo Brunelleschi, who won the competition in 1418 to complete the cupola (or dome). Although many credit Brunelleschi as the “architect of record” for the Florence Cathedral, it was Fioravanti whose elaborate set of “bridging” documents – his huge model – outlined the overall design for the structure and dome, while Brunelleschi merely engineered and finished the dome as a successor architect. PROS AND CONS. The detractors of bridging say this method of procurement eliminates many of the advantages inher- ent in design-build. They say that bridging precludes the design-build team from any significant creativity and inno- vation, since basic solutions and concepts are determined before the design-build team begins. Also, when 30 percent or more of the design is provided in the RFP, the selection of the design-build team tends to be more price oriented, with less emphasis on qualifications-based selection. “Public owners who are used to having an architect to discuss the project with, to advise them, and to ‘keep an eye on the contractor,’ often feel more comfortable with a bridging consultant.” On the “pro” side, public and private owners who have down-sized their construction staffs, or have minimal staff, need to outsource the RFP process and construction administration to a consultant. Public owners who are used to having an architect to discuss the project with, to advise them, and to “keep an eye on the contractor,” often feel more comfortable with a bridging consultant. Design-build without such a consultant requires a great deal of trust, and some owners are just not ready for that level of trust.

G. William Quatman

By providing a preliminary design, bridging also helps reduce the cost of competition for design-build teams. TARGET MARKET? Bridging is a target market for some design firms, whose main focus is to be the “A/E-1,” handling con- ceptual design and then acting as the owner’s agent during construction. While fees for “design criteria” architects are less than for full-scope services, there is an attraction to- ward this service for at least three reasons. “Bridging is a target market for some design firms, whose main focus is to be the ‘A/E-1,’ handling conceptual design and then acting as the owner’s agent during construction.” First, most architects will agree that the “fun” part of architecture is the design phase. Construction documents and specifications, the technical side of design, is less glamorous. Bridging architects get to do concept designs, the way they did as students in college, leaving the technical drawings and detailed specifications to the design-build team to develop. Second, the bridging consultant retains a close relationship with the owner, preserving the role of agent, advisor and trust that is enjoyed on traditional project delivery. Also, most architects resent being a “subcontractor” to a contractor in design-build, so the “bridge” role avoids that perceived problem. Last, there is less risk for the bridge firm. Insurance statistics show that the majority of claims against design firms are for design errors or omissions. With the bridge firm doing only a 30 percent set of schematic drawings, which are normally not even sealed, it is expected that the design-build team will prepare the final technical details used for construction and seal these documents. If there is a design error or omission in the final drawings or specifications, liability will most likely fall on the design- build team’s architect or engineer who prepared the documents, not on the bridge firm. G. WILLIAM QUATMAN is general counsel and senior vice president at Burns & McDonnell Engineering Co. He can be reached at bquatman@burnsmcd.com.

THE ZWEIG LETTER May 2, 2016, ISSUE 1150

Made with FlippingBook Annual report