Integrated Project Delivery Saves Client Millions

Wayne Einbinder at the ACE conference

How do you measure the success of a project? One of the most obvious, and important ways is to compare the final cost with the original budget. Most owners would agree; projects that finish under budget – without compromising quality – are the very definition of success. The key to that success is almost always a collaborative approach – like Integrated Project Delivery (IDP) – in which every member of the project team is able to contribute his or her talent and experience toward the common goal of best value.

Sundt‘s recently completed research facility project at Arizona State University (ASU) is a great case in point, as Wayne Einbinder, Sundt’s Director of Special Projects, explained yesterday in a presentation to ASU’s Alliance for Construction Excellence (ACE).

ASU’s Interdisciplinary Science and Technology Building 4 (ISTB 4) is a state-of-the-art facility equipped with sophisticated systems to support cutting edge research and education. By all standards, it is one of the university’s and Sundt’s most successful projects for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that the team was able to shave millions off of the project budget without reducing quality – an achievement that was directly attributable to the Integrated Project Delivery process.

“A program was developed by ASU independent of budget; it was estimated at $160 million and 310,000 gross square feet,” Wayne explained. “The project budget was later established at $134 million at 284,000 gross square feet, which was disappointing to the users who wanted their original scope. Through the IPD approach, the team was able to add back almost all of the scope in both building area and systems, and yet still meet the mandated budget. Then the economy fell off the cliff in 2008, and the client put the project on hold. A year later, we were able to utilize the same team, with the owner receiving an additional 20 percent off the original proposal, proving that design-bid-build is not necessary to receive the savings that result from market correction.”