RICS CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING RESEARCH CONFERENCE SEPT 2008 RESEARCH

COBRA2008
COBRA 2008
The construction and building research conference of the
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

Held at Dublin Institute of Technology, 4-5 September 2008

ISBN 978-1-84219-434-8

© RICS

12 Great George Street

London SW1P 3AD
United Kingdom

[Link]/cobra

September 2008
All papers submitted to COBRA were assessed by expert panel, drawn from the construction and
building research community, The conference organisers wish to extend their appreciation to the
members of the panel for their work, which is invaluable to the success of COBRA.

Kate Carter Heriot-Watt University, UK

Keith Cattell University of Cape Town, South Africa
Grace Ding University of Technology Sydney, Australia
Tom Dunne Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland
Charles Egbu University of Salford, UK
Chris Fortune University of Salford, UK
Rod Gameson University of Wolverhampton, UK
Louis Gunnigan Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland
Martin Hanratty Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland
Alan Hore Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland
Myles Keaveny Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland
Steven McCabe Birmingham City University, UK
Kathy Mitchell University of Cape Town, South Africa
Keith Potts University of Wolverhampton, UK
David Root University of Cape Town, South Africa
Kathy Roper Georgia Institute of Technology, USA
Lloyd Scott Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland
Winston Shakantu Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, South Africa
Lorcan Sirr Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland
Suresh Subashini University of Wolverhampton, UK
Stephen Walsh Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland
Sara Wilkinson Deakin University, Australia

In addition to this, a specialist panel assessed paper for the session arranged by CIB W113.

John Adriaanse London South Bank University, UK

Julie Adshead University of Salford, UK
Rachelle Alterman Technion, Israel
Jane Ball University of Sheffield, UK
Michael Brand University of New South Wales, Australia
Penny Brooker University of Wolverhampton, UK
Ruth Cannon Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland
Alice Christudason National University of Singapore
Paul Chynoweth University of Salford, UK
Philip Chan National University of Singapore
Sai On Cheung City University of Hong Kong
Ron Craig Loughborough University, UK
Jose Caramelo Gomes University of Lusiada, Portugal
Asanga Gunawansa National University of Singapore
Rob Home Anglia Ruskin University, UK
Peter Kennedy Glasgow Caledonian University, UK
Anthony Lavers Keating Chambers, UK
Tim McLernon University of Ulster, UK
Frits Meijer TU Delft, The Netherlands
Jim Mason University of the West of England, UK
Brodie McAdam University of Salford, UK
Issaka Ndekugri University of Wolverhampton, UK
Linda Thomas-Mobley Georgia Tech, USA
Yvonne Scannell Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
Cathy Sherry University of New South Wales, Australia
Henk Visscher TU Delft, The Netherlands
 Sustainable buildings with AEC+Planning+Facility management

Kathy O. Roper
Georgia Institute of Technology
[Link]@[Link]

Daniel Castro-Lacouture
Georgia Institute of Technology
[Link]@[Link]

Angelica M. Ospina-Alvarado
Georgia Institute of Technology
aospina3@[Link]

Abstract

As sustainability and “green” practices grow throughout the world, industries are reviewing ways to
provide products and services that reduce the impact on resources and materials. With the launch of the
U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system,
new building construction in the United States has quickly become the new standard for sustainable
building. Efforts to achieve sustainable construction profoundly alter the design and operation of
buildings, yet, to date, little has been documented on the cumulative impacts of the rating system across
all of the different phases of the project life cycle: Planning, Architecture (design), Engineering,
Construction and operational Facility management (AEC+P+F). Traditional AEC must also include
Planning and operational Facility management for complete life cycle analysis, therefore,
AEC+Planning+Facility management are proposed. Additionally, implications of AEC+P+F integration
and the delivery system in LEED attainment also have not been clearly associated.

This research explores associations between LEED criteria, project life cycle, stakeholder interests, and
the delivery systems used in building construction. The paper presents a matrix of weighted indexes to
explain and provide increased collaboration among project participants, and improved efficiency
throughout the project life cycle.

1
Keywords: AEC+P+F Integration, LEED environmental rating, project life cycle, Integrated Project
Delivery.

1. Introduction

Efficient resource usage is currently one of the most recognized benefits of sustainable or “green”
buildings. Efficiencies in the areas of energy, water and materials make sustainable buildings highly
desirable, and in most cases, cost justified. Historically, most buildings built to standard codes do not
provide these same efficiencies. Sustainable commercial buildings also have been found to contribute to
improved employee health, comfort, and productivity in the workplace. Due to the sustainable focus on
whole life cycle of the building, these efficiencies provide opportunities for improved integration and
processes in all phases of the life cycle. With the launch of the U.S. Green Building Council’s
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system, new building construction in
the United States had rapidly begun adopting this guide as the standard for sustainable building. The use
of this rating system profoundly alters the design and operation of buildings in areas of energy, water
and materials use, indoor health, occupant recycling programs, mass transit access, landscaping,
construction waste management, and overall maintenance. To date, little has been documented on the
cumulative effects of the rating system across different phases of the project life cycle, Planning,
Architecture (design), Engineering, Construction and operational Facility management (AEC+P+F).
The ability to increase efficiencies in the building phase itself is also largely unstudied. Implications of
the selected delivery system within LEED attainment also have not been clearly associated yet with the
level of AEC+P+F integration.

This paper reports progress on research aimed to determine associations among LEED criteria, project
life cycle, stakeholder interests, and overall improvements to the delivery systems used in building
construction. A matrix of weighted indices is proposed to describe current interactions and integration
of stages throughout the project life cycle. The matrix is also projected to provide insights for additional
collaborative opportunities, improved efficiency and potential new relationships among stakeholders
which could improve the entire construction and operational life cycle.

2. Background

Historically, sustainable procurement of buildings in the U.S. has been justified only if final costs are
within a small percentage increase of the traditional cost, or if the project repays additional costs within a
short number of years. Measures of project value or return on investment are found by Pearce, et al.

2
(1989) and Gottfried (2003) to be important in feasibility analysis of sustainable projects. New research
(Katz, 2006) also aids the case that costs for sustainable (LEED) projects can be minimized with early
involvement of all major stakeholders, including the Contractor, Engineers, and Facility Manager,
resulting in projects that maximize efficiencies and eliminate unnecessary costs. Some sustainable
building projects have even been found to be cost neutral or cost negative (Riley, et. al. 2003, Katz 2006).
When project team address normal objectives and add the objective for achievement of a minimum
sustainability score to provide the desired sustainability certification, project relationships immediately
change, requiring more collaboration and analysis of the constructability and operability prior to design.
This analysis procedure requires life cycle assessment to be used as the primary legitimate basis on which
to compare alternative materials, components and services.

Previous studies identified several drivers of change in the building construction industry as a response to
new sustainability initiatives (Augenbroe and Pearce 1998). Some of these drivers include but are not
limited to: energy conservation measures, land use regulations and urban planning policies, waste
reduction measures, resource conservation strategies, indoor environmental quality, environmentally-
friendly energy technologies, re-engineering the design process, proactive role of materials manufacturers,
better ways to measure and account for costs, adoption of performance-based standards, product
innovation and/or certification, adoption of incentive programs, education and training, and recognition of
commercial buildings as productivity assets. This list provides initial information to address the
importance of the delivery system and the integration of the project life cycle in the concept of building
sustainability.

A number of other existing assessment methods, in addition to the USGBC LEED guidelines, include the
U.K. ‘Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method’ – BREEAM; the Canadian
‘Building Environmental Performance Assessment Criteria’ – BEPAC – program; the Hong Kong
‘Building Environmental Assessment Method’–HK-BEAM; and the ‘Green Building Challenge’ – GBC
assessment framework. These all contain similar requirements for consideration of environmental issues,
minimizing construction waste, energy use, preservation of resources, existing soil and trees, wastewater
discharge, hazardous materials, etc. (Cole 2000).

The proposed decision-making matrix, based on LEED - New Construction 2.2 (USGBC 2007), provides
information on the various project stakeholders required to be involved with specific credits and
prerequisites within the LEED rating guideline. In order to fully consider the nature of the entire project
life cycle, decisions impact not only preconstruction decision-making, but impact across all other project
stages: construction, commissioning, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning. This holistic

3
view creates a dramatic change in the involvement of stakeholders in the project. LEED credit
attainment has become a catalyst for better integration across the entire project life cycle, involving all
stakeholders: Architectural Planning and design, Engineering analysis and design, Construction, and
Facility management (AEC+P+F). A number of research questions arise from these changes including:

• What is the relationship between LEED attainment and AEC+P+F integration?

• If LEED contributes to AEC+P+F integration, how can it be measured?

• Are current delivery methods adequate for building projects pursuing LEED certification?

• Is a new requirement for a novel delivery system required?

The proposed matrix is based on a detailed analysis of the project life cycle under a common delivery
system used for LEED certified buildings, and on the rating system criteria itself. The matrix includes the
complete range of interactions that take place at each stage of the project and they are correlated to
implications they provide to the LEED rating criteria. This matrix is proposed to identify the processes
used for interaction among stakeholders, which can provide insight into possible relationships between the
rating system or environmental assessment tool, the delivery system, and the integration of AEC+P+F.

In addition to the lean principles and resource savings directly resulting from the adoption of LEED, the
increased integration of AEC+P+F opens the possibility for additional benefits. Costs may be reduced,
schedules compressed, as well as time saved due to expediting material ordering and schedule
compression. The AEC+P+F integration accompanying LEED certification also can address one of the
most important aspects of cost and time reduction, that of underutilization of people (Ramkrishnan et al.
2007). This research addresses the involvement, importance and integration of Owners, Architects,
Contractors, Specialty Consultants and Facility Managers for the successful completion of LEED or other
sustainable projects.

3. Integrated Project Delivery and AEC+P+F Integration

Traditional construction practice has several characteristics that create issues for improvement of the
overall performance and sustainability of the project. Issues include fragmentation of the supply chain; no
unified standards for information exchange; and poor cross-disciplinary communication due to many sub-
processes being carried out by various professionals not contractually responsible to each other. These
issues lead to problems of a culture of adversarial roles and blaming the other parties for errors; the

4
overall process lacking transparency; and a false belief that each project is unique providing no transfer of
knowledge from one project to the other (Sun and Aouad 2000). However, Sun and Aouad (2000) suggest
that 80% of building inputs are repeated, and good ideas are held back because many subcontractors are
brought into the process after drawings are completed or are in design development stages. Other issues
include an inability to coordinate the work of the different project participants, and pressure for local
optimization, in which each project participant tries to improve his own performance at the expense of the
overall project or other parties, due to a compensation structure based on self-performance (Matthews and
Howell 2005, Sun and Aouad 2000, Forcada Matheu 2005).

Fortunately, there are now many drivers for the construction industry to move toward a more integrated
approach: current sustainability initiatives, generational differences, cultural and market challenges, as
well as wide international competition in the industry. Increasing project complexity, greater owner
expectations, new performance metrics focused beyond first cost (e.g., quality, sustainability, life cycle
cost, completion time) are all factors pushing the market toward more collaboration. Additionally, owners
are requesting more integrated solutions (i.e., resources are very limited therefore there is need to improve
productivity and efficiency), and there is desire from all project participants to reduce litigation (Georgia
Tech A/E/C Integration Workshop 2007).

In response, the integration of the construction industry is beginning. The American Institute of
Architects has developed the concept of Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) (AIA National and AIA
California Council 2007). The ConsensusDOCS Coalition on the construction side recently released the
ConsensusDOCS 300 Standard Form of Tri-Party Agreement for Collaborative Project Delivery
(ConsensusDocs 2008).

The IPD is a project delivery approach based on collaborative processes that integrate project participants,
business structures, systems and construction practices, in order to connect and boost project participants’
talents and insights, optimizing project results, increasing value to the owner and other project
participants, and reducing waste while increasing efficiency throughout the project life cycle. This
approach can be used with different contractual agreements structures and the team brings in members
beyond the owner, designer and general contractor (AIA California Council and McGraw Hill 2007, AIA
National and AIA California Council 2007).

Improvements in the IPD approach over traditional project delivery include the elimination of fragmented,
hierarchical interactions, only performed when necessary, and the loosening of strict controls typically
seen in traditional delivery. IPD utilizes a team formed with all key project stakeholders, including
facility managers, key subcontractors, vendors, and specialty contractors who provide requirements for the

5
specific project early in the process within a collaborative framework. Instead of traditional delivery
where the process is linear, segregated and knowledge exchange is used only when needed, or information
is kept private in silos of knowledge and expertise, with IPD the processes can be concurrent, with project
participants contributing their knowledge and expertise to the team in a trusting and open collaboration
with respect within the team. Risk is managed in traditional delivery by each individual firm, causing
every stakeholder to transfer risk as much as possible, whereas in IPD, risk is managed and shared by the
team, placing responsibilities on the project participants who can handle it in the best manner.
Compensation tied to individual first cost success only within traditional delivery causes each individual
to attempt to maximize his return at a minimum effort, often in detriment of the project, client or other
participants. Conversely, IPD provides compensation tied to team success, typically evaluated not on a
first cost basis, but measured on quality, sustainability, life cycle cost, energy savings, schedule
compliance, and other factors determined by the team and dependant on the project goals. Traditional
approaches to the contractual agreement foster unilateral efforts designed to transfer risk, whereas IDP
supports multilateral efforts, collaboration and promotes risk sharing in contract agreements (AIA
National and AIA California Council 2007, Matthews and Howell 2005).

Integration of the project team is one of the most important changes that the industry has to achieve in
order to phase projects as a holistic flow from conceptualization through implementation and closeout,
moving all design decisions to early process stages where they contribute to more saving, effectiveness
and reduce costs in an appropriate manner. In a traditional life cycle process the project phases are Pre-
design, Schematic Design, Design Development, Construction Documents, Bidding, Construction,
Closeout, and Operation. During the five initial phases project participants define what the project is;
during the construction documents phase stakeholders determine how to develop the project; in the
bidding phase who will develop the project is defined; and in the construction stage actual construction
takes place. In the traditional approach the owner and designer are part of the project from pre-design, the
project consultants are brought in the schematic design, the general contractor is brought in usually in the
construction phase and sometimes before to give some advice, and the trade contractors are brought in the
construction phase. The integrated approach proposes a change on the name of the project phases to
Conceptualization, Criteria Design, Detailed Design, Implementation Documents, Final Buyout,
Construction, Closeout, and Operation. Within this approach the owner, designer, design consultants and
general contractor are brought into the project at the conceptualization stage and the key trade contractors
are brought in the design criteria phase and the trade contractors that are not key participants will be
brought in the buyout phase (AIA National and AIA California Council 2007, AIA California Council and
McGraw Hill 2007).

6
4. Methodology

A framework to explain the mutual influences between LEED categories, the life cycle activities within
an integrated project, and the project participants involved in that particular category and activity, is
proposed. Through the development of a matrix to visualize and enhance understanding, this paper
provides the initial matrix model which will be validated through expert opinion in later stages of the
research. This matrix is proposed to identify the processes used for interaction among stakeholders,
which can provide insight into possible relationships between the rating system or environmental
assessment tool, the delivery system, and the integration of AEC+P+F. The matrix is structured with the
main phases of the life cycle of the integrated project delivery approach: conceptualization, criteria
design, detailed design, implementation documents, construction, and operation and maintenance; and the
six LEED categories (from LEED New Construction, version 2.2). The horizontal axis reflects the phases
of the integrated project delivery expanded to 48 specific activities, and the vertical axis shows LEED
categories divided into 65 different credits, prerequisites and points. Intersecting cells within the matrix
provide a LEED credit/prerequisite and the project life cycle activity representing mutual influence
between the two components. Therefore, each LEED credit/prerequisite/point provides 48 possible
influences. The intersecting cells are populated with proposed appropriate project team members
involved in that specific activity. Although the matrix does not take into consideration every project
stakeholder, it does include the main players identified as: O-Owner, A-Architect, C-General Contractor,
S-Specialty Consultant, F-Facility Manager, and T-Trade Contractor(s). The matrix implies that the
specified project participants would have an impact not only on the activity, but also on the corresponding
LEED credit category. In order to complete cells in the matrix an extensive study of the USGBC LEED
reference guide and of the Impact of LEED NC Projects on Constructors from Michigan State University
(Syal 2007) was carried out as well as a close review of the AIA guide on integrated project delivery.

Completion of the matrix with project participants having input and making contributions to the particular
credit/prerequisite and the activity, the contribution of each stakeholder to each LEED category at each
project stage is calculated as a percentage of the total contribution of all stakeholders to that LEED
category at that stage, based on the content of the filled cells. Pie charts to provide graphic
representations of these calculated percentages are developed for further evaluation.

7
Figure 1: FOCAS Matrix

“FOCAS” was chosen as the matrix nomenclature to represent project participants, where F stands for
Facility Manager; O the Owner; C Contractor; A Architect; and S all Specialty consultants. Accordingly,
the “FOCAS Matrix” cells are filled with the proposed F/O/C/A/S letters based on the project
participant’s involvement to attain a particular LEED credit/prerequisite and the project stage or task
where they make critical sustainable decisions or contributions. Validation of accuracy of contribution
categories with LEED credit/prerequisite activities is still due and a part of the ongoing research.

5. Analysis with FOCAS Matrix

The FOCAS matrix is helpful in identifying within each specific phase the responsible team members
providing major contributions toward LEED credits/prerequisites. Analysis of each phase of the facility
life cycle clearly shows key issues for each of the team members and provides insight on their major
contributions during each phase. These are also correlated for quick identification to each of the LEED
categories for sustainable construction.

5.1 Conceptualization Phase

During the conceptualization phase, all project participants work as a team to define the project and its
goals, responsibilities, implementation plans, and measures of success. The matrix lists the first LEED
category, Sustainable Sites, and paired with the conceptualization phase, finds that the owner, architect
and the specialty consultants have the major contributions; the participation of the facility manger and the

8
general contractor are important, although as a secondary role. The apportionment of each active
stakeholder’s contributions is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Team participation: Conceptualization Sustainable Sites

Facility
Manager, 11%

Owner, 26%
Consultant,
24%

General Architect, 25%

Contractor, 14%

The Sustainable Sites category has two main objectives: to locate the project in an appropriate site and to
reduce the negative impacts of the project on that site. The entire team defines the project goals and
communication methodologies, evaluates project risks and evaluates the team member best able to handle
each risk. The owner, architect and specialty consultants define, to a larger extent, the scope of work and
aid in identification of possible sites. Although the general contractor helps on this prerequisite, their
main involvement in this phase centers on the development of costs and preliminary schedule.

For the Water Efficiency LEED category the owner, consultants and architect have the major contribution,
and the role of the facility manager takes on more importance. The general contractor contribution is
reduced, and specialty contractors are not part of the team yet, as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Team participation: Conceptualization Water Efficiency

9
 Facility
Manager, 18% Owner, 23%

Consultant, Architect, 21%

27%
General
Contractor, 10%

The Water Efficiency category focuses on reduction of water consumption and waste water generation.
The role of the facility manager is increased in this phase due to their role in scope definition, which
differs from their participation in the sustainable sites category. The general contractor participation is
reduced in this phase since they are not part of the scope definition in this category.

In the Energy and Atmosphere category the main players are the owner and specialty consultants. The
architect and facility manager play an important role, and the participation of the general contractor is very
similar to their participation in the Water Efficiency category. The Energy and Atmosphere involvements
are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Team participation: Conceptualization Energy and Atmosphere

Facility
Manager, 14% Owner, 29%

Consultant,
27%
Architect, 18%
General
Contractor, 11%

The Energy and Atmosphere category main objectives are to reduce nonrenewable energy consumption
and optimize efficiency of the installed systems in the building. In this stage participation of the specialty
consultants is higher than in previous categories due to the importance of their input in scope definition;

10
the architect acts as support to the specialty consultant. The owner gains valuable input on operability
from the facility manager, yet retains the major decision-making role in this phase. The general contractor
deals with scheduling and budgeting, but is not heavily involved in the project definition.

The Materials and Resources category provides almost the opposite role for the general contractor from
Energy and Atmosphere, as primary roles in this phase belong to the owner and the architect. The facility
manager and the specialty consultants provide some participation in the conceptualization of this category,
as depicted in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Team participation: Conceptualization Materials and Resources

Facility
Manage r, 8%
Consultant, 6%

O wner, 27%

Ge ne ral
Contractor, 29%

A rchitect, 30%

The Materials and Resources category focuses on reduction of non-renewable, virgin raw materials, and
the reduction of wastes during the construction and operation phases of the facility. The architect, owner
and general contractor are primary decision-makers, providing the important role in project definition and
target and scope for specific credits. The role of the specialty consultant is substantially reduced in this
category since selection of materials comes initially from the architect. The general contractor aids in
materials selection, but plays a critical role when procuring materials. The primary input from the facility
manager at this phase includes recommendations or requirements for operability.

In the Indoor Environmental Quality category all team members play important roles, the owner and the
architect having a somewhat larger participation than the rest of the team, as shown in Figure 6.

11
Figure 6: Team participation: Conceptualization Indoor Environmental Quality

Facility
Manager, 17% Owner, 23%

Consultant,
19%
Architect, 22%

General
Contractor, 18%

The Indoor Environmental Quality category addresses occupant welfare within the facility and consists of
three main components: the systems design to provide adequate ventilation and thermal comfort; the
provision of clean, fresh air; and occupant control over their own environment. In this phase, the owner
and facility manager provide requirements from the users, the architect and general contractor source
materials without contaminants and the consultants provide engineering and integration of systems.

The sixth category of LEED, Innovation and Design Process, is also included in the matrix since it is
critically important during the conceptualization phase when the project team determines targeted credits
for exemplary performance and defines design or operational characteristics of the facility to contribute
toward innovative credits. When identifying team members it is important to determine who could best
perform the LEED administrator role since one innovation credit is possible using a LEED® Accredited
Professional. In this category participation of all project participants is critical to achieving the Innovation
and Design Process credits, and everyone shares equal contributions for this category.

5.2 Design Phase

The design phase is typically accomplished through three different stages: criteria design, detailed design,
and implementation documents. During criteria design, options are evaluated and selected, the scope of
work is completely defined and documented, and the team of key participants, including key specialty
contractors, is brought on board. Detailed design differs from traditional design development since design
is completed in this phase and an agreement on variations is reached among these contractors. The
implementation documents reflect how the project will be constructed, and shop drawings of key trade
contractors and prefabrication takes place. Although the primary participants in each of these three design
phases may change, for the purpose of this paper, the design phase is treated as one phase.

12
The Sustainable Sites category reflects that the role of the owner changes considerably throughout design.
During the criteria design, owner input is critical for the final scope and selection of design options.
However, during detailed design, the owner role shifts to defining quality levels. In the third design stage,
implementation documents, the owner has no significant role since previously made design decisions
dictate the implementation documents. The role of the facility manager, similarly, is almost negligible
during the design phase for the credits of category of sustainable sites. The participation of the architect
moves to support of the specialty consultants for some credits such as site development, storm water
design, heat island effect and light pollution reduction, and possibly as lead designer for a few credits.
The specialty consultants primarily are responsible for the design of this category; their role is very
important and almost constant throughout design as they define the systems during the criteria design and
design them during the detailed design, with help from the trade contractors.

The inclusion of specialty or trade contractors during the design phase marks a major difference from the
traditional approach; their input helps to completely finalize the design before construction starts, thereby
fostering prefabrication since shop drawings can be provided before later stages. During criteria design
the trade contractors’ participation is minor. However their participation increases during the design
phase as they finalize agreement on tolerances between trades and participate in detailed cost estimating
and scheduling. During implementation documents, specialty contractors help finalize these documents
and complete shop drawings. Finally, the general contractor participation is important during criteria
design, participating in selection, value engineering, cost and schedule estimating processes. Later in
detailed design, participation from the general contractor is reduced, mainly providing estimates and
schedules in this design phase. However, during implementation documents the role of the general
contractor increases again due to the need to gather normal estimating and scheduling inputs, and provide
definitions for construction means and methods.

For the Water Efficiency category, the project team members’ participation is similar to the Sustainable
Sites throughout the design phase. The owner has a larger involvement during criteria design, but owner
participation is substantially reduced at the end of implementation documents. The contributions of
specialty consultants is extremely large in this category because they design the landscape, irrigation, and
plumbing system, contributing during scope finalization, definition of systems, and design of systems. The
general contractor also has a similar participation in Water Efficiency as in the sustainable sites category,
as do the trade contractors. Participation of the architect is focused on supporting specialty consultants
who are designing the systems, and often specifying equipment be installed in the facility.

13
The participation of facility management team changes from the previous category. Although their
participation is smaller compared to other project participants, facility managers are important decision-
makers for final scope definition of systems and for establishment of expected quality levels.

In the Energy and Atmosphere category, owners have a large involvement during the criteria design phase.
Participation to define and select the major systems and some building components also are the
responsibility of the owner. Owner participation decreases during detailed design phase and is typically
limited to establishing quality levels; owner participation is also substantially reduced during
implementation documents. The facility manager has a small but important participation to assure that
selections will provide future ongoing verifications and measurements for documentation during the
operational phase. Additional input on quality standards is also provided by the facility manager. At this
stage, the role of the architect is small compared to the role of the specialty contractor, since major
systems are designed by specialty consultants.

Participation of the general contractor is very similar to previous categories, and deals mainly with design
options selection and value engineering, cost estimation and scheduling, and construction means and
methods. The input of trade contractors is very important in this category. Even though their participation
is marginal during the criteria design, they become major participants during systems design, the shop
drawing process, as they bring a wide range of prefabrication possibilities and potential savings for
consideration.

For the Materials and Resources category, participation of key participants substantially differs from that
in previous categories. The architect becomes the major decision-maker in regard to design, and the
general contractor provides important input. During criteria design the owner participates with design
option selection. Then during detailed design, owner participation focuses on establishing quality levels;
implementation documents participation becomes minimal. The facility manager has a very small
participation on this category, dealing especially with the storage and collection of recyclables prerequisite
design or other interior facility impacts. The participation of specialty consultants and trade contractors is
very small and is directly related to the attainment of credits for reusing structural components and
reducing wastes.

In this category, the architect holds a key role in the specification of project materials, and the constructor
makes decisions related to materials availability. This category also includes some contractor
requirements such as use of regional material, procurement strategies, and waste management decisions.

14
For the Indoor Environmental Quality category, the owner plays a major role, more than in other
categories. This role is most evident during the criteria design and detailed design stages, since it deals
with the comfort and wellbeing of final users. Therefore, the owner has high involvement in finalizing the
scope, selecting the design, and establishing the quality level. Similarly, the facility manager participates
during criteria design, finalizing verification requirements for thermal comfort and to some extent during
detailed design, establishing quality levels. As many credits and prerequisites in this category deal with
lighting and mechanical systems, project material delivery and materials selection, the specialty
consultants and architect act as lead designers for specific credits and prerequisites within this category,
and their active participation is similar throughout the entire design phase.

General contractor participation during the first stage of design is greatest, decreasing in the second stage,
and increasing again at the end of design. Conversely, the participation of trade contractors is small
during the criteria design but increases as the design progresses. For the criteria stage, the general
contractor finalizes credits related to material selection, value engineering, and scheduling and budgeting.
During detailed design, inputs from the general contractor focus on establishing quality levels and are
similar to participation levels in previous categories. The participation in this category by trade contractors
is very similar to their participation on the Energy and Atmosphere category.

Overall, during the conceptualization stage, project team participation is important for the Innovation and
Design Process category. The lead designer for these first four credits will be directly related to the
definition of the credits.

5.3 Construction Phase

Once design is finalized and coordination issues have been solved regarding detailed design and
implementation documents, the construction process is intended to be straight forward. Little involvement
from the architect and specialty contractors are required except to respond to inquiries from the general
contractor and trade contractors as required during construction. For the purpose of this paper the
construction phase encompasses the construction of the facility including closeout and commissioning
processes.

Figure 7 shows the Sustainable Sites category in which the main players are the general contractor and the
trade contractors as they are responsible for performing the actual construction. Involvement of the
owner, facility manager, architect, and specialty consultants during this phase occurs in the
commissioning process.

Figure 7: Team participation: Construction Sustainable Sites

15
 Architect, 4%
Owner,
Trade 7%
Contractor, 36%
General
Contractor, 37%

Consultant, 8%

Facility
Manager, 8%

Water Efficiency shares of contributions are shown in Figure 8. The key project participants’ involvement
is very similar to the participation on the Sustainable Sites category; however, a slightly larger
involvement by the facility manager, architect and consultants is seen because more systems are involved
with water efficiency that should be commissioned.

Figure 8: Team participation: Construction Water Efficiency

Owner, 5%
Architect, 8%

Trade
Contractor, 31%
General
Contractor, 31%
Facility
Manager, 13%
Consultant,
12%

For the Energy and Atmosphere category involvement of the owner and architect remains small and is
centered on the closeout and commissioning process, as shown in Figure 9. The role of the general
contractor and trade contractors is crucial as it relates to actual construction of the facility, as well as
training final users on the systems constructed. Participation in this category from the facility manager
and consultants is significant, more so than in the previous categories, due to requirements for systems
commissioning and heavy involvement of the facility manager in operational training procedures.

16
Figure 9: Team participation: Construction Energy and Atmosphere

Architect, 4%
Owner,
Trade 8%
Contractor, 25%
General
Contractor, 26%
Facility
Manager, 16%

Consultant,
22%

For the Materials and Resources category the contruction process is dominated by the general contractor
and the trade contractors, as shown in Figure 10. The facility manager, owner and architect have some
participation in the closeout process. Specialty consultants do not play a significant role in this category.

Figure 10: Team participation: Construction Materials and Resources

Owner, 6%
Architect, 5%

Trade
Contractor, 44%
General
Contractor, 39%

Facility
Manager, 7%

Consultant, 0%

The involvement of key project participants on the Indoor Environmental Quality category during the
construction phase is very similar to their participation on the Energy and Atmosphere category. Specialty
consultants and the facility manager actively participate during the commissioning and training processes,
since major systems are involved in this category. The contributions are shown in Figure 11.

17
Figure 11: Team participation: Construction Indoor Environmental Quality

Architect, 8%
Owner,
Trade 7%
Contractor, 27%

General
Facility Contractor, 27%
Manager, 12%

Consultant,
19%

5.4 Operations and Maintenance Phase

The operation and maintenance phases for both delivery systems IPD and the TPD are very similar, except
for the major difference of early involvement and input of users and the facility manager. Since the
facility serves the final users, their input early in the project can reduce re-work and lead to better user
satisfaction. The matrix as developed, includes this phase, however the result for this phase is similar
throughout all LEED categories; the major player is the facility manager, and in most categories support
from external consultants is higher, not the case in most external consultant involvements in previous
phases. For the Sustainable Sites category, the facility manager and, as needed, external consultants are
involved in minor operational assessment and periodic facility assessment, the facility manager is
involved in regular operation and maintenance training of new personnel and users regarding proactive
maintenance of the facility. For the Water Efficiency category the role of the facility manager and external
consultant is similar; however additional periodic customer surveys should be performed in order to
maintain a high user satisfaction, especially if technologies such as grey water recirculation, waterless
urinals or composting toilets are used for first time. In the Energy and Atmosphere category the facility
manager and external consultant involvement is very similar compared to the Sustainable Sites category;
however, one major difference is the post occupancy test of the energy systems that should be performed
by the commissioning consultant with support from the facility manager. For the Materials and Resources
category the participation of the facility manager is based primary on regular training on operation and
maintenance training for new personnel due to the use of new materials involved in the project; periodic
costumer surveys and/or educational reminders are beneficial to improve the storage and collection of
recyclables. Finally for the Indoor Environmental Quality category, the facility manager and external

18
consultant are part of the minor operational adjustments, periodic building assessments, and verification
survey for thermal comfort of occupants. The facility manager should also conduct periodic customer
surveys on ventilation, lighting, and thermal comfort to ensure user satisfaction. In addition, the facility
manager performs regular training of operations and maintenance personnel to perform the proactive
maintenance of all building systems.

Conclusions

Acceptance of sustainable building construction requires changes to the current methods of project
delivery. Traditional project delivery approaches do not provide the necessary collaboration among
project team members from the early stages, as this is a key requirement for integrated and sustainable
building projects. The integrated project delivery approach is best for a LEED project with its early
contribution of key project participants in a collaborative, open communication relationship and potential
to maximize attainable credits. As presented in the matrix and associated charts, in order to optimize
LEED credits and prerequisites, decision-making should come early in the conceptualization and criteria
design phases of the project; therefore, early participation by all team members is required. Stakeholders
each play a different role within the project as the project evolves, and the intention of the integrated
approach is to maximize the contribution of these roles. Most key stakeholders are involved in the
conceptualization phase so that everyone understands the project goals and objectives. Similarly, the
entire team contributes at the criteria design phase with the inclusion of key trade contractors, giving all
team members the possibility of fully contributing their specialized capabilities to benefit the project.
Each project team member should be able to contribute to the initial group meeting process, or charrette,
and investigate and share opportunities for the addition of options to increase LEED credit points. The
charrette also provides members the opportunity to approve and to assess the attainability of each
recommendation.

Additional benefits of sustainable construction qualify it as lean construction, which is the design of
production systems to minimize waste of materials, time, and effort in order to generate the maximum
possible amount of value (Koskela and Howell 2002). Early interactions of team members in each phase
from project conceptualization, design, construction and operations, take place to increase sustainability
rating requirements, providing the maximum possible value for the client in pursuing LEED certification
at specific target levels.

This paper also establishes a base for further research aimed at increasing project stakeholder
collaboration through the implementation of sustainable guidelines like LEED in new construction. In
addition to the benefits of LEED adoption (i.e., collaboration, deliver the product while maximizing value,

19
eliminate unnecessary items/processes for delivering value, etc), the integration of all team members, or
AEC+P+F integration, provides the possibility for other valuable benefits. Key among these benefits are:
a compressed schedule for design and construction projects due to more opportune decision-making; cost
reductions may also result due to expedited material ordering and prefabrication; and also as a result of the
schedule compression, additional cost savings as well as customer satisfaction increases can be found. In
general, the AEC+P+F integration resulting from LEED or other sustainable construction addresses one of
the most important current issues in construction, that of the underutilization of people (Ramkrishan et al.
2007). The acceptance and adoption of sustainable guidelines like LEED are increasing and improving
the AEC+P+F integration.

20
References

AIA – The American Institute of Architects National, AIA California Council (2007). Integrated Project
Delivery: A Guide

AIA California Council and McGraw Hill Construction (2007). Integrated Project Delivery: A Working
Definition

Augenbroe, G., and Pearce, A. (1998). “Sustainable Construction in the USA; A perspective to the year
2010.” Sustainable development and the future of construction, Bourdeau, L, (editor), CIB report 225,
Chapter 14.

Cole, R.J. (2000). “Building Environmental Assessment Methods: Assessing Construction Practices.”
Construction Management and Economics, (2000) Vol. 18, pp 949–957.

Cole, R.J., and Larsson, N. (1999) “GBC ’98 and GBTOOL: Background.” Building Research &
Information, Vol. 27, No. 4/5, pp 221–9.

Cole, R.J., Rousseau, D. and Theaker, G.T. (1993). Building Environmental Performance Assessment
Criteria (BEPAC), BEPAC Foundation, Vancouver, Canada.

Forcada Matheu, N. (2005). Life Cycle Document Management System for Construction. PhD Thesis
Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya.

Gottfried, D. (2003). “A Blueprint for Green Building Economics,” Environmental Design &
Construction, Vol. 6, No. 5, pp 24-25.

Katz, Gregory (2006). “Greening America’s Schools: Costs and Benefits,” Capital E report.

Koskela, L., Howell, G., Ballard, G., and Tommelein, I. (2002). “The Foundations of Lean Construction,”
Design and Construction: Building in Value, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK.

Matthews, O., Howell, G. “Integrated Project Delivery an Example of Relational Contracting” Lean
Construction Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp 46-61.

Pearce, D., Markandya, A., and Barbier, E. (1989). Blueprint for a Green Economy. James &
James/Earthscan, London, UK, p.192.

21
Ramkrishnan, K., Roper, K. Castro-Lacouture (2007). “Green Building Rating and Delivery Systems in
Building Construction: Towards AEC+P+F Integration” IGLC‐07 Proceedings, Lean Construction
Conference, Lansing, Michigan, 2007.

Riley, David, Pexton, Kim and Drilling, Jennifer (2003). “Procurement of sustainable construction
services in the United States: the contractor’s role in green buildings.” Industry and Environment:
Sustainable Building and Construction. United Nations Environment Programme, Vol. 26, No. 2-3, pp
66-69.

Sun, M., Aouad, G. (2000). “Integration Technologies to Support Organizational Changes in the
Construction Industry” 7th ISPE International Conference on Concurrent Engineering. Lyon, France, pp
596-604.

Syal, M. (2007). Impact of LEED NC Projects in Construction. Research Report Michigan State
University, AGC Education and Research Foundation.

USGBC (1999). LEED - Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design: Green Building Rating System,
Version 1.0, US Green Building Council.

USGBC (2005). LEED for New Construction (LEED-NC), Version 2.2, US Green Building Council.

USGBC (2007) for New Construction (LEED-NC), Version 2.2, Reference Guide. US Green Building
Council.

22