Key Biscayne Master Plan 043944000.18w_Key_Biscayne_MP(forJooMag) | Page 75

7.0 PROJECT DELIVERY METHODS
7.2.4
Integrated Project Delivery (IPD)
Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) is relatively new method specifically
geared towards building construction and is being used more and more in
conjunction with Building Information Modeling or BIM. This method was
developed using ideas developed by Toyota and is designed to solve key
construction issues such as a project schedule delays, cost overrun, and
tensions among project team members. IPD is defined by the American
Institute of Architects as “a project delivery approach that integrates
people, systems, business structures and practices into a process that
collaboratively harnesses the talents and insights of all participants to
optimize project results, increase value to the owner, reduce waste,
and maximize efficiency through all phases of design, fabrication, and
construction.” 1
There are eight main sequential phases to the IPD method:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
conceptualization phase [expanded programming]
criteria design phase [expanded schematic design]
detailed design phase [expanded design development]
implementation documents phase [construction documents]
agency review phase
buyout phase
construction phase
closeout phase
facilities management
IPD requires collaboration between the primary parties to share the
risk and responsibility for project delivery. In a contractual sense, the
owner, contractor, and designer are joined in a multi-party agreement to
create a team-based approach with the goal to maximize collaboration
and efficiency. Compensation typically consists of three components:
1) reimbursement to cover costs, 2) incentive for achieving desired
budgetary goals, and 3) rewards for accomplishing set project goals.
There is very little industry experience with this method. Kimley-Horn
is not aware of it being used in the public sector or on horizontal
infrastructure projects. Kimley-Horn is also not aware of any contractors
within the undergrounding industry that are experienced with this method
1
or advocating its use. Therefore, we have not considered it as a viable
alternative for delivery of any phase of this program.
7.3 Delivery Methods Used by Local
Municipalities
In developing our recommendations, we also reviewed how other local
municipalities delivered their overhead to underground utility conversion
projects. The following table provides a summary.
Municipality
Method
Town of Jupiter Island DBB
Jupiter Inlet Colony DBB
Town of Gulfstream DBB
City of Hollywood CMAR
City of Pompano Beach CMAR
Lake Worth
TOPB (Worth Ave)
DB
CMAR
TOPB (Everglades Island) DBB
TOPB (Nightingale/La Puerta) DBB
TOPB (Lake Towers) CMAR
City of Hallandale Beach CMAR
City of Kissimmee CMAR
City of Sunny Isles (Collins Corridor)
Town of Palm Beach (Town-Wide, PH1-N,S)
Town of Longboat Key
DBB
CMAR
DB
As shown in the table, a mix of Design-Bid-Build, Design-Build, and
CM-at-Risk project delivery methods have been employed by various
municipalities to deliver overhead to underground conversion projects.
7.4
Project Area Characteristics
To start our analysis of project delivery, we first looked at what we learned
during the development of the project phasing and sequencing plan.
During that analysis it became apparent the project phases can be broken
into groups based on total impacted area including:

alternating work zones to minimize those impacts,
“Integrated Project Delivery: A Guide” (PDF). American Institute of Architects 2007 version 1
71