Guidebook for Integrating Collaborative Partnering into Traditional Airport Practices (2019)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

29 3.1 Introduction This chapter presents the criteria to select the right tools for any given airport construction project and start using them at the right time during project delivery. It is important to: • Incorporate Knowledge of Collaborative Partnering: The knowledge of collaborative partnering and its tools from Chapter 2 should assist guidebook users in obtaining the most important resources to adopt collaborative partnering in a project. • Engage Top Management Support: The degree of top management support largely deter- mines the degree of effective partnering implementation on the project. Figure 4 provides guidance in navigating through this chapter and understanding the tools presented in the guidebook to help with effective partnering implementation. Chapter 3 presents four broad steps to implement partnering in projects using this guidebook (see Figure 4): • Step 1: Assess Project Risk—The risk assessment is based on key project characteristics. This assessment guides the project teams in prioritizing use of the collaborative partnering tools. A Project Risk Assessment Worksheet is provided in table form at the conclusion of this section. C H A P T E R 3 The Flight Plan: Implementing Collaborative Partnering in Airport Projects YOU ARE HERE Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Effective Implementation Optimal Implementation Learn about COLLABORATIVE PARTNERING TOOLS SELECT tools and START using them at the right time in project delivery Manage KEYTOOLS effectively: PARTNERING FACILITATOR and STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Assess and improve ORGANIZATIONAL READINESS to use Partnering Learn about COLLABORATIVE PARTNERING and its BENEFITS, and obtain TOP MANAGEMENT support Navigating through the guidebook—Chapter 3.

30 Guidebook for Integrating Collaborative Partnering into Traditional Airport Practices • Step 2: Determine Partnering Intensity Level—Based on the project risk assessment com- pleted in Step 1, the partnering team chooses the ideal mix and frequency of collaborative partnering practices and tools for successful project delivery. This section concludes with a table that organizes partnering intensity information according to partnering tools and project risk levels. • Step 3: Follow the Partnering Implementation Framework—This step illustrates the timing of adoption of partnering tools and briefly describes their implementation based on: – Project delivery methods (DBB, DB, and CMR/CMGC). – Partnering intensity level (Level 1 to Level 5) as determined via Step 2. This discussion also ends with a table, which summarizes the partnering implementation framework. Figure 4. Navigating partnering implementation in projects using this guidebook.

The Flight Plan: Implementing Collaborative Partnering in Airport Projects 31 • Step 4: Develop and Use a Partnering Checklist—This step involves adopting practices and tools at the right times during project delivery (planning, programming, design, pre- construction, construction, and post-construction). The chapter discussion concludes with a table presenting a sample Partnering Checklist developed for this guidebook. 3.2 Step 1: Assess Project Risk A key factor affecting project performance in partnered projects is project risk. Higher project risk requires the adoption of more partnering tools to achieve improved project performance. The factors listed in Figure 5 affect risk in airport construction projects. To ensure project success, assessment of the risk is important in determining: • The type(s) of collaborative partnering tools that will be used. • The frequency with which the selected collaborative partnering tools will be used. Based on the degree to which these factors occur in aviation construction projects, the Project Risk Assessment Worksheet (Table 2) can help owners and project teams evaluate the risk of aviation construction projects. When using the worksheet, project teams should keep in mind that aviation construction projects typically are characterized as having high levels of: • Political significance. • Project complexity. • Team coordination required. • Stakeholder engagement. Hence, any project risk level inherently assumes some risk based on these factors. Based on the perceived risk levels of other factors, project owners and/or teams can assess the overall project risk level using the worksheet. Some projects might feature a mix of characteristics that differ from those listed in Table 2. For example, a project might have a budget of less than $40 million (medium-low risk level) but the number of potential risks might be very high (high risk level). In this case, owners may follow two approaches to decide the project risk: • Use Table 2 to select the highest risk level to which any project characteristic is associated. Using this approach with the example case, because the number of potential risks is high (high risk level) and the budget is $40 million (medium-low risk), the project would be assigned a risk level of high. H IG H ER R IS K Project team coordination and stakeholder engagement Number of potential risks and political significance Project cost and airport operations during construction Impact on key airport operations such as security checkpoints Project duration Project complexity Figure 5. Factors affecting risk in airport construction projects.

Use this column to determine the project’s characteristics, and refer to the table at right to determine the overall project risk level. The number of potential risks impacting project cost and time is: a. High b. Moderate c. Moderate or Low d. Low The likelihood of construction activities interfering with key airport operations is: a. High b. Moderate c. Low (will not interfere) The likelihood of construction activities interfering with the security checkpoints is: a. High b. Moderate c. Low (will not interfere) The project cost is: a. More than $100 million b. Between $50 million and $100 million c. Between $25 million and $50 million d. Between $10 million and $25 million e. Less than $10 million Project duration is: a. More than 2 years b. Between 1 year and 2 years c. 1 year or less The schedule aggressiveness* is: a. High b. Moderate c. Low Project Risk Level Project Characteristics Characteristics typically inherent to aviation construction projects regardless of their project risk level in- clude high political significance, high project complexity, high required team coordination, and high stakeholder engagement. High • Number of potential risks impacting project cost and time is high. • Construction highly interferes with key airport operations such as security checkpoints. • Project cost is more than $100 million. • Project duration is more than 2 years or is subject to a highly aggressive schedule. * Medium- High • Number of potential risks impacting project cost and time is moderate. • Construction moderately interferes with key airport operations such as security checkpoints. • Project cost is between $50 million and $100 million. • Project duration is more than 2 years or is subject to a moderately aggressive schedule. * Medium • Number of potential risks impacting project cost and time is moderate. • Construction moderately interferes with key airport operations but not with security checkpoints. • Project cost is between $25 million and $50 million. • Project duration is between 1 year and 2 years or is subject to a moderately aggressive schedule. * Medium-Low • Number of potential risks impacting project cost and time is moderate or low. • Construction moderately interferes with key airport operations but not with security checkpoints. • Project cost is between $10 million and $25 million. • Project duration is 1 year or less or is subject to a moderately aggressive schedule. * Low • Number of potential risks impacting project cost and time is low. • Construction does not interfere with key airport operations and security checkpoints. • Project cost is less than $10 million. • Project duration is 1 year or less or is subject to a lowly aggressive schedule. * * Highly aggressive schedules are those (1) requiring a high load of daily work (e.g., $1 million per day) and with high liquidated damages if completion is delayed; (2) demanding schedule compression (e.g., due to, an urgent need for gates because of an external event such as the start of the Olympic Games); or (3) needing a “fast tracked” mode wherein specific work must be performed before developing a complete set of drawings. Table 2. Project Risk Assessment Worksheet.

The Flight Plan: Implementing Collaborative Partnering in Airport Projects 33 • Use Table 2 to select an intermediate risk level (i.e., a level that falls between the highest and lowest risk levels identified for the project based on the project characteristics). Using this approach with the example case, because the number of potential risks is high (high risk level) and the budget is $40 million (medium-low risk) the project could be assigned a risk level of either medium or medium-high. These two approaches provide some flexibility to project teams using the Project Risk Assessment Worksheet. Choosing which approach to use may depend on the team’s priorities and available project knowledge. In the face of many “unknowns,” the first approach—which is predisposed to generate a higher risk assessment–provides a higher likelihood of project success. 3.3 Step 2: Determine Partnering Intensity Level This section defines partnering intensity and then presents a tool to guide project teams implementing collaborative partnering at differing levels of partnering intensity based on an assessment of project risk. The partnering intensity level corresponds to the extent to which partnering tools will be implemented in response to a project’s assessed level of project risk in conjunction with the desired project and team performance outcomes. Put another way, a project’s partnering intensity can range from low to high and refers to the number, type, and frequency of use of the partnering tools recommended or required for the project (see Table 3). Higher levels of intensity entail the use of more partnering tools, and often with a higher frequency. Partnering intensity does not consider the project delivery method or the timing of adoption of partnering tools. These factors are discussed in the section on the partnering implementation framework. 3.4 Step 3: Follow the Partnering Implementation Framework This section presents the partnering implementation framework to help owners of airport organizations understand the optimal timing of adoption of partnering tools. The framework varies based on two factors that directly affect the core components of collaborative partnering: team collaboration and goal alignment. In turn, these two factors can be affected by: • Partnering Intensity Level: The intensity level may affect the number and frequency of partnering tools implemented, thus influencing the degree to which the partnering process can help team members align their goals and improve collaboration. For example, a medium- low partnering intensity level may not recommend the use of multi-tiered partnering and partnering scorecards tools, or may recommend quarterly rather than monthly partnering workshops to develop and/or update team goals. • Project Delivery Method: For any project, the delivery method influences the timing of involvement of key parties (owner, A/E, general contractor, and subcontractors), thus determining when they can start collaborating to establish aligned goals. For example, in DB projects, the kick-off partnering meeting should take place during the early stages of design, as soon as the design-builder is selected. In DBB projects, ideally, two kick-off partnering meetings should be held: – The first kick-off partnering meeting takes place when the A/E joins the team. – The second kick-off partnering meeting takes place before construction begins, but after the contractor is on board. If only one kick-off partnering meeting is planned, the project teams should wait to hold this meeting when the contractor has joined the project team.

Partnering Tools Partnering Intensity Levels Based on Project Risk Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Low Risk Medium-Low Risk Medium Risk Medium-High Risk High Risk Tool 1: Partnering specifications Recommended Recommended Recommended Recommended Recommended Tool 2: Partnering facilitator* Internal or Self-directed Internal or Third-party (At kick-off at least) Third-party Third-party Third-party Tool 3: Kick-off partnering meeting Recommended Required Required Required Tool 4: Partnering Charter Required Required Required Required Required Tool 5: Issue resolution process Required Required Required Required Required Tool 6: Co-location Recommended Recommended Required Required Required Tool 7: Partnering training Recommended Recommended (At kick-off at least) All Team (If no prior training) All Team (If no prior training) All Team (If no prior training) Tool 8: Partnering scorecards At least two Bi-monthly Monthly Monthly Tool 9: Stakeholder engagement* Required (for Tool 5 only) Required (for Tool 5 and Tool 10) Required (for Tools 3, 5, 9, 10 and 11 in executive-level workshops only) Required (for Tools 3, 5, 9, 10 and 11 in executive- and field-level workshops only) Required (for Tools 3, 5, 9, 10 and 11 in executive, field and core level workshops) Tool 10: Partnering workshops At least two (Recommended) Quarterly Bi-monthly Monthly Monthly Tool 11: Multi-tiered partnering Recommended (Stakeholders may partici- pate in developing Tool 5 and Tool 10) Required (Stakeholders participate at executive level in Tool 10) Required (Stakeholders participate at executive and field levels in Tool 10) Required (Stakeholders participate at executive, field and core levels in Tool 10) Tool 12: Focus groups Recommended Required Required Tool 13: Partnering meeting minutes Recommended Required Required Required Required Tool 14: Team-building activities Depends on team experience working together Depends on team experience working together Depends on team experience working together Depends on team experience working together Tool 15: Partnering recognition and awards Recommended Recommended Recommended Tool 16: Close-out workshop Recommended Recommended Recommended Required Required *Details of these tools are explained in Chapter 4. Required tools are those needed to ensure project success. Recommended tools are those likely to have some impact on project success and that should be taken into consideration. To determine project priorities and costs, see the Summary table that precedes Chapter 1. Table 3. Partnering intensity organized according to partnering tools and project risks.

The Flight Plan: Implementing Collaborative Partnering in Airport Projects 35 Table 4 presents the collaborative partnering implementation framework. The key features of the framework are: • Partnering tools are ordered chronologically. • Each partnering tool has a brief description of the timing for adoption. • Process effectiveness measures, shown in the far-right column, indicate parameters that are expected to show improvement when properly using a specific partnering tool. • The diamond symbol ( ) indicates the optimal point for adopting a specific partnering tool to maximize its positive impact on project outcomes. It is ideal that the adoption of most tools should take place early during project delivery, such as at the beginning of the design phase. At each point, the relevant partnering tools should be initiated with the contribution of the key parties on board, which will vary based on the project delivery method. For example, using the DBB delivery method, the parties on board during the early design phase will be limited to owners, designers, and key stakeholders. • The six-sided symbol ( ) indicates the optimal point at which a specific partnering tool should be updated or revised. This step is necessary when additional key parties are involved in the project after the partnering tool has been adopted. In these cases, the partnering tool needs to be updated or revised with all key parties’ contribution to optimize partnering effectiveness. For example, in the DBB delivery method, once the contractor is on board, the partnering tools that were initiated earlier in the project should be revisited with all key parties to realign the project goals. • With regard to Tool 9 (stakeholder engagement), key stakeholders may be involved with the owners even earlier in the project (i.e., during the programming and planning phases) to address key design questions. However, if these stakeholders are brought in at the beginning of the design phase, they can still influence design outcomes at a low cost. The last two bulleted items highlight key features that address how to modify the framework when following any project delivery method, including but not limited to CMR/GC, DB, and DBB. 3.4.1 DBB Projects For optimal project outcomes, project teams following DBB also should start utilizing collaborative partnering during the design phase. However, in DBB projects the general contractor is not involved in the collaborative partnering process during the design phase. Therefore, project teams using DBB should hold two kick-off partnering meetings—one at the beginning of the design phase (preconstruction), and another one after the general contractor has come on board (after bidding or start of construction). At the second kick-off partnering meeting, partnering tools such as scorecards, issue resolution processes, and the Partnering Charter can be revised to incorporate the general contractor’s input. If the project team plans to hold only one kick-off workshop, it should be held when the contractor joins the project team. 3.4.2 DB and CMR Projects To enhance project outcomes, project teams following DB and CMR should start using collaborative partnering early in the design phase (i.e., as soon as the design-builder or construction manager/general contractor is hired and no later than the start of design develop- ment phase). 3.4.3 Turnaround Partnering Even though collaborative partnering is ideally recommended as a preventive measure, the approach also can be used to “turn around” a failing project. With the best of intentions and

Partnering Tools Project Phase Indicates the optimal time to adopt a partnering tool under any project delivery method (e.g., DB, CMR/GC, DBB, and others). Indicates the optimal time when the partnering tool should be revised/updated with new key parties’ input as they join the team. (This framework shows the timing for partnering tool revisions in DBB projects where general contractors get on board after design completion.) Process Effectiveness Measures Programming and Design Construction Close-Out Tool 1: Partnering specifications Risk allocation, selection of items for early procurement, and design criteria established early on. (Contractual and procurement phase) Tool 2: Partnering facilitator* Clear and compatible goals, and effective coordination. (Delivery practice) Tool 3: Kick-off (pre-workshop) partnering meeting Resolution strategy established, equal power/empowerment, clear and compatible goals, clear definitions/lines of responsibility, design criteria established early on, common vision, commitment to quality, and high ethical standards. (Contractual and procurement phase) Tool 4: Partnering Charter Resolution strategy established, equal power/empowerment, equality among the partnering participants, clear and compatible goals, clear definitions/lines of responsibility, a common vision, commitment to quality, and high ethical standards. (Contractual and procurement phase) Tool 5: Issue resolution process Conflict identification, resolution strategy established (updated), equal power/ empowerment, clear definitions/lines of responsibility (updated), effective coordination, and an effective process for change orders. (Contractual and procurement phase) Tool 6: Co-location Efficiency of communications; faster – better decision making; and more timely information sharing sessions. (Delivery practice) Tool 7: Partnering training Effective coordination, a common vision, commitment to quality, and high ethical standards. (Delivery practice) Include requirements in the contract that inform partnering facilitator (Tool 2) selection and development of the Partnering Charter (Tool 4) Led by the partnering facilitator (Tool 2). Hold the first meeting early in planning and design phases (latest by the start of design-development). With DBB, hold a new kick-off partnering meeting at construction start including the contractor. If only one kick-off partnering meeting is planned, then it should be held after the contractor joins the project team and before the construction starts. Hold an employee-level training session at the kick-off partnering meeting (Tool 3) if the team is inexperienced with partnering. Subsequent trainings can be conducted during the project or at workshops (Tool 10) as needed. Develop at the kick-off partnering meeting (Tool 3). Update whenever needed, especially before the construction start with the general contractor’s input if DBB is the delivery method. Hire/assign the facilitator as soon as the A/E, design-builder, or the construction manager is onboard. With DBB, follow the same path and update other key tools (Tools 3, 4, and 5) under the lead of the facilitator once the contractor is on board. Create at the kick-off partnering meeting (Tool 3) and use and update throughout the project. Update during partnering workshops (Tool 10) if needed. Adopt as early as possible after project commencement. Co-location involves the design team, construction and owner representatives, and other key team members working in a trailer at the jobsite or in a field office for faster and efficient communication. *Owners should work with an external, third-party partnering facilitator on their first partnering projects irrespective of project size and complexity. Table 4. Partnering implementation framework: Tools explained in the light of project delivery methods. (continued on next page)

Partnering Tools Programming and Design Construction Close-Out Process Effectiveness Measures Tool 8: Partnering scorecards Conflict identification, and mutual goals and objectives communicated (updated). (Delivery practice) Tool 9 Stakeholder engagement** Conflict identification, mutual goals and objectives communicated (updated), a common vision, commitment to quality, and high ethical standards. (Delivery practice) Tool 10: Partnering workshops Conflict identification, resolution strategy (updated), free flow of information, integrated IT, clear and compatible goals (updated), clear definitions/lines of responsibility (updated), effective coordination, resource sharing and open books, holding design information in common, and reliable cost data. (Delivery practice) Tool 11: Multi-tiered partnering Equal power/empowerment, equality among partnering participants, effective coordination, schedule management on milestones, and strategy for checking resources/facilities. (Delivery practice) Tool 12: Focus groups Free flow of information, effective coordination, resource sharing and open books, and holding design information in common. (Delivery practice) Tool 13: Partnering meeting minutes Resolution strategy (updated), clear and compatible goals (updated), clear definitions and lines of responsibility (updated). (Delivery practice) Tool 14: Team-building activities Conflict identification, common vision, commitment to quality, and high ethical standards. (Delivery practice) Tool 15: Partnering recognition and awards Common vision, commitment to quality, and high ethical standards. (Delivery practice) Tool 16: Close-out workshop Timely project completion achieved, and lessons learned recorded. (Deliv- ery practice) **Key stakeholders may be involved earlier in the project (i.e., during the programming and planning phase with the owners) to address key design questions. However, if stakeholders are engaged at the beginning of the design phase, they can still influence design outcomes at a low cost. Develop at the kick-off partnering meeting (Tool 3) to establish a target perfor- mance baseline and use later in all partnering workshops (Tool 10). w Commence after the kick-off partnering meeting (Tool 3). This is practiced at partnering work- shops (Tool 10) at which various project team and stakeholder groups (executive, core and field level) meet to discuss relevant issues at combined or separate orkshops for various levels. Involve key stakeholders at the kick-off partnering meeting (Tool 3) to develop the issue resolution process (Tool 5) and Partnering Charter (Tool 4). Thereafter, depending on the partnering intensity level, include stakeholders at different partnering workshops (Tool 10). Record meeting minutes for kick-off partnering meeting (Tool 3) and thereafter for every partnering workshop (Tool 10). Initiate after the kick-off partnering meeting (Tool 3). Increase partnering workshops’ frequency based on increase in project risk. For low risk, work- shop frequency can be quarterly, whereas for high risk it can be monthly. Form after the kick-off partnering meeting (Tool 3) as needed. Considering team members’ previous experience with partnering and working together, the facilitator is to organize these. Typically, performed at least during or after each partnering workshop (Tool 10). Practice at every partnering workshop (Tool 10) where partnering champions are nominated using partnering scorecards (Tool 8). Consider recognitions at the close-out workshop(s) and teaming up members to apply for external awards and recognition by professional organizations. Hold after the last partnering workshop (Tool 10) during the final stages of construction. This tool usually marks the end of the project and can be used to push the project through the finish line, record lessons learned, and celebrate success. Table 4 (Continued).

38 Guidebook for Integrating Collaborative Partnering into Traditional Airport Practices the best planning, things can go terribly wrong in projects, and often it is no one’s fault. In particular, a very skilled partnering facilitator can be invaluable in recognizing the symptoms, diagnosing the critical issues, and organizing the necessary actions and cooperation to work out the problems. The facilitator can escalate issues as needed to solicit senior management inter- vention and hold people to their word regarding commitments made to put the project first. Strategies for the use of partnering tools on troubled or failing projects cannot be generalized, and partnering is best implemented on a case-by-case basis by analyzing the type and extent of the issues faced. It is highly recommended that partnering on such projects be led by a highly experienced, external partnering facilitator who is a good fit for the on-going team dynamics. The following case study example demonstrates how partnering was used for one “turnaround” project. Case Study Example During construction of a security checkpoint project, the project parties became “stressed” by continuous discovery of differing site conditions and resorted to blaming each other. The owner organization decided to implement collaborative partnering to try and save the project schedule and hired an experienced and qualified external partnering facilitator (Tool 2). First, the facilitator worked with the team to establish an issue resolution process (Tool 5) for speedy resolution of issues. Next, stakeholder engagement (Tool 9) was practiced to bring together various entities with a vested interest in the outcome of the project during the team’s partner- ing workshops (Tool 10). This practice made it easier for the various entities to cooperate and to set and pursue common project goals. Focus groups (Tool 12) also were used to help tackle specific project issues. Multi-tiered partnering (Tool 11) brought executive-level members into the partnering process to set the tone for team relationships. 3.5 Step 4: Develop and Use the Partnering Checklist At the beginning of the project, the partnering facilitator should develop a customized Part- nering Checklist that accounts for the project risk level and delivery method (DBB, CMR/ CMGC, or DB) in light of the partnering intensity level and the partnering implementation framework. This step involves pulling together the information and processes described in Step 2 and Step 3 (and summarized in Table 2, Table 3, and Table 4) in this chapter and selecting or adapting the information to fit the project being considered. The Partnering Checklist should be presented to the project team at the kick-off partnering meeting, updated as needed during project delivery, and used to track: • Required and recommended partnering tools. • Timing of adoption of partnering tools during the project delivery phases (i.e., planning, design, construction, and close-out). Table 5 shows a sample Partnering Checklist for a high-risk project using the DBB delivery method. 3.6 Partnering Costs and Responsible Parties Partnering costs vary based on project needs and can include: • Partnering facilitator fees. • Partnering training. • Partnering workshops. • Partnering scorecards. “Partnering turned a project that was headed for failure into one of the biggest successes in the airport’s capital program history. The critical project elements were delivered in the time frame the airport needed, and the project was completed approximately $1 million under the contract amount.” —Representative from Owner Organizations

Potential Risk Factors: High political significance, high project complexity, high required team coordination, and high stakeholder engagement; many potential risks impacting cost and time; strong interference with airport operations and security checkpoints; project budget larger than $100 million; duration longer than 2 years or subject to a highly aggressive schedule. Required and Recommended Tools Partnering Tools Remarks Check and Notes Tool 1: Partnering specifications Use for partnering facilitator selection (Tool 2) and informing development of the Partnering Charter (Tool 4).  Tool 2: Partnering facilitator Use external third-party facilitation. Hire the facilitator as soon as the A/E is on board or (latest) before the kick-off partnering meeting (Tool 3). Update other key tools (Tools 3, 4, and 5) under the lead of the facilitator once the contractor is on board. If the project team decides to hold the kick-off partnering meeting after the contractor is selected, the facilitator should be procured jointly with the contractor and be brought on board as soon as possible to catalyze teamwork during planning for construction.  Tool 3: Kick-off partnering meeting Hold one kick-off meeting at the beginning of the design phase, and have it be led by the partnering facilitator (Tool 2). If necessary (e.g., for DBB projects), hold another kick-off partnering meeting at construction start (with the general contractor present) to revise partnering tools such as scorecards (Tool 8), the issue resolution process (Tool 5), and the Partnering Charter (Tool 4) with the general contractor’s input. If the team plans to hold only one kick-off partnering workshop, it should be held when the contractor has joined the project team.  Tool 4: Partnering Charter Develop at the kick-off meeting (Tool 3). With DBB projects, revise at construction start with the general contractor’s input. Update whenever needed during the duration of the project.  Tool 5: Issue resolution process Create at the kick-off meeting (Tool 3). For DBB projects, revise at construction start with the general contractor’s input. Use and update throughout the project, typically during partnering workshops (Tool 10).  Tool 6: Co-location Adopt this tool as early as possible after project commencement. In co-location, the design, construction and owner representatives, and other key team members work in a trailer at the jobsite or in a field office.  Tool 7: Partnering training Consider the project team’s partnering experience and, when needed, start at the kick-off partnering meeting (Tool 3) to synchronize all the participants on the basics and tools of collaborative partnering.  Tool 8: Partnering scorecards Create at the kick-off partnering meeting (Tool 3) to establish a goal/performance baseline; use in all partnering workshops (Tool 10).  Tool 9 Stakeholder engagement Involve key stakeholders at the kick-off partnering meeting (Tool 3) and develop the issue resolution process (Tool 5) and Partnering Charter (Tool 4) with their input. Involve key stakeholders at all partnering workshops (Tool 10).  Tool 10: Partnering workshops Hold on a regular (monthly or bi-monthly) basis after the kick-off partnering meeting (Tool 3).  Tool 11: Multi-tiered partnering Involve stakeholders at the executive, field, and core level at the kick-off partnering meeting (Tool 3) and later on a regular (e.g., monthly or bi-monthly) basis at partnering workshops (Tool 10) to lead the design and construction process.  Tool 12: Focus groups Form focus groups after the kick-off partnering meeting (Tool 3) as needed.  Tool 13: Partnering meeting minutes Record minutes for partnering workshops (Tool 10). Use to update the issue resolution process (Tool 5) and partnering scorecards (Tool 8).  Tool 14: Team-building activities Organize activities depending on team members’ previous experience working together. Based on project team needs, the activities can be conducted as short exercises during earlier partnering workshops (Tool 10) or in one or more separate sessions if more time is needed.  Tool 15: Partnering recognition and awards Nominate partnering champions at every partnering workshop (Tool 10) using partnering scorecards (Tool 8). Can also be practiced at the close-out workshop (Tool 16), especially if no serious feedback is to be taken during the close-out workshop.  Tool 16: Close-out workshop Hold after last partnering workshop (Tool 10) to record lessons learned and prepare project handover.  : Table 5. Sample Partnering Checklist for a high-risk (Level 5) project using DBB.

40 Guidebook for Integrating Collaborative Partnering into Traditional Airport Practices • Meeting accommodations such as meeting room(s) rentals and catering. • Awards and recognition. SFPW’s partnering guide lists estimates for partnering cost items as shown in Table 6. These costs can be shared between the owner and the contractor in various ways, depending on how the specifications are laid out. For example: • On projects that implement self-directed partnering, the costs of hiring the partnering facilitator generally rest with the owner organization. • On projects where an external (third-party) partnering facilitator is hired, various conditions apply, such as: – The owner organization reimburses the partnering facilitator fees, in whole or in part, as agreed to in the partnering specifications or the partnering agreement. For organizations that have been using or intend to use partnering regularly on their projects, it is recom- mended that they include partnering specifications in their contracts to cover criteria for facilitator selection and contract allowance terms for partnering facilitators. Within this allowance, facilitators can be selected using: � A Pre-Approved List of Partnering Facilitators: Compiling such a list can save airport organizations time compared with selecting the facilitator later in the project timeline. In order to be included on this list, potential facilitators may be asked to submit a statement of qualifications to the airport organization. � RFPs or RFQs: Airports can list minimum qualifications required via an RFQ. Organiza- tions not able to outline such criteria can solicit RFPs stating the desired outcomes and expectations of the partnered-project. – The costs of the partnering workshop and subsequent items, such as costs for training, evaluations, refreshments during the workshops, and so forth, are borne by the design- builder, general contractor, or construction manager on the project. This expense, without addition for fees or mark-up, is then reimbursed by the owner organization. – A certain allowance is kept as a line item in the bid for partnering costs. Any request for addition to this allowance may be made via a change order, which should be agreed to by the contractor and the owner organization. Cost Item Estimate Remarks Facilitator fees for partnering workshop $4,500–$7,000 per workshop Includes: pre-partnering services, partnering workshop, materials, and follow-up. Travel expenses of the partnering facilitator may be extra. Partnering training Varies Depends on type of training (specific or broad). The partnering facilitator should be consulted for partnering training costs. Partnering scorecards $500–$600 per scorecard Based on: Internet-based partnering performance survey unique to the project’s partnering program. Meeting accommodations (meeting room(s) rental) Varies For smaller groups, meeting rooms usually are offered for the partnering workshop free of charge by the owner or a team member. For larger groups, these costs should be factored in the estimate. Meeting accommodations (lunch and refreshments) $10–$25 per participant per workshop Source: Based on information in Partnering San Francisco: A Mini-Guide to Partnering (SFPW 2016) Table 6. Partnering cost estimates. See: Sample Facilitator Allowance Language for Specifications in Appendix A

The Flight Plan: Implementing Collaborative Partnering in Airport Projects 41 – In projects where the need of a partnering facilitator arises midway into the project, a contract change order (CCO) is recommended. The cost of the CCO can then be shared as agreed to by the owner and the contractor. Using a CCO has several benefits: � It is a speedy process that eliminates the requirement of developing facilitator allowance language in the partnering specifications. � It is less complicated administratively because the process of filing a CCO is a standard one. � It is flexible in terms of facilitator selection, as there might be pre-set facilitator selection criteria in the project’s existing bid documents. • For airports that face a continuous series of small to medium-sized projects, one or more qualified partnering facilitators can be engaged on the basis of a standing offer so that facilitator services can be called upon with a minimum of bureaucratic burden and expense. Appendix B provides examples from airports and DOTs that relate to the management of partnering costs in projects.