On Friday, March 21, in Orlando, Director Ben Nolan will present the workshop “I-Pads and Hard Hats: Electronic Project Management and Discovery.”
By: John Baxter and Rick Moffat
In Part 1, we introduced public–private partnerships as a delivery model, and we discussed the risks involved in interpreting details. In this post, we will discuss user groups and potential solutions to risks.
Another issue that arises after award of a project involves user groups. In some cases, after the winning bidder is selected, there is a period of time during which the bidder must refine its initial design. One aspect of this involves having user-group sessions to provide more detail on how people will actually use the space. During these sessions, it is often discovered that the accepted proposal did not meet the requirements of a particular department, due to the requirement not being either listed or initially considered during the bid phase. Many issues could be resolved prior to the closing of the bid process if user groups had more access to short-listed bidders. User groups would have an opportunity to explain their requirements to bidders before submission of proposals.
As public–private partnerships (P3) become an increasingly popular delivery model, a new set of risks has begun to arise for both owners and bidders seeking to win projects. Based on experience, BRG sees common areas where disagreements occur; we then proactively address potential gaps and work towards further enhancing agreements between parties. The following are a couple of samples of areas in which we have seen these risks.