Price Tag Probably Not Based on Standard ‘Design-Build’ Contracting Method
By Geoff Page
The City of San Diego held its fourth OB Pier Renewal Community Workshop, Saturday April 6, during which the public got a look at the design for the new pier. The event was very well attended — perhaps as many as 200 people came to the Liberty Station Conference Center for the workshop.
The public also got a look at the new estimate to build the new pier based on the current design. $175 – $200 million.
My first reaction was that it took less than that to build two highway bridges over the San Diego River. That price tag was $150 million, for two bridges, a far more complicated project. This estimate to build the pier makes it more or less, impractical. Unless the design is changed.
At the previous workshop, the public saw three concept pier designs and was asked to vote on the preferred design. The overwhelming favorite, in a large poll, was the design shown at Saturday’s event. Simply put, the pier design follows the same footprint as the existing pier, including the two north and south arms. The main difference is a raised walkway above the pier deck designed to enhance the viewing experience.
The main flaw in the decision to go with the public’s favorite design is that the public was never told what each of the three pier designs might cost. The favorite was the most expensive design. The public was asked which one appealed to them the most, they were not asked which one they would be in favor of actually building. Cost is always a factor when making such decisions.
The estimate appears to be seriously out of whack. Is the problem that the designers were apparently not given a maximum budget, a not-to-exceed limit to design to? These are the same professionals who work on contractor estimates, so it was entirely possible to develop estimates for each concept.
The design-build construction contracting method is what the city plans to use to build the pier one day. That process is exactly the same as could have been used in this pier design process.
In a design-build relationship an owner provides the concept it wants for a project. The design-builder provides an estimate and if the estimate exceeds what the owner wants to spend, they work together on the design to trim costs until it reaches the owner’s budget. This should have happened with the new pier design.
The three original pier concepts were increasingly expensive from one to another. It’s similar to the three iPhone 15s out today. There is the plain iPhone15 then the iPhone15 Pro and the iPhone15 Pro Max. There is a significant cost difference so a shopper looks at the features and decides they do not need tons of storage or a camera that does a little something extra, so the iPhone15 it fine. And maybe the cheapest pier design would be good enough.
There have been a lot of great ideas about what to have in a new pier, many of which are incorporated in the preferred design. But, much of this is getting away from what the pier means to people, what it has always meant to people. This is a fishing pier where people gather to either seriously fish, or to socialize with fishing as the central activity.
The design calls for widening the pier by only a couple of feet. Making the pier appreciably wider should have been part of the concept from the beginning. Spend the budget on something that would benefit everyone like that instead of a skywalk.
There is a tactic often used by public agencies that is, hopefully, not being used here. The tactic is to propose an alternative that is ridiculously costly or somehow repugnant. That alternative, never actually intended to be the choice, is designed to get the public to accept the alternative the agency really wanted. What the agency really wanted may also be objectionable but it looks acceptable when compared to one “proposed.”
Certainly the first of the three pier concepts, the plainest design, might look much more attractive if it was $50 million cheaper than the preferred concept for the new pier. The cost factor might make people think again about what they really need in a new pier and it might just be a plain new pier just like the old pier. That might be doable. For now, what is proposed is not doable at that price.
Design build has it’s unexpected results also. The Harbor Drive Pedestrian Bridge was redesigned after the weight of a mock up section was too heavy and the designer/engineering had to adjust things. A longer time to build and a higher cost.
Maybe that project took longer and cost more, but design-build’s main attraction is that it shortens the construction schedule by a considerable amount of time. Cost is also easier to control because the design-builder does both, thereby eliminating the conflicts between a designer and a builder. And the project has a guaranteed maximum price.
A little different from what you described, in that the city was the owner, the builder being a sub of the engineering. Two different companies. Just not always a slam dunk.
Well, that isn’t design-build then.
I don’t agree with that, but don’t it’s important to detract from the story.
Well, Chris, I spent my whole career in construction and I have a pretty good handle on design-build. Having a builder being a subcontractor to an engineer is just not design-build.
well TY Lin was the designer/engineer and we answered to them, not the city. don’t know what else to call it. Cheers.
https://www.tylin.com/work/projects/harbor-drive-pedestrian-bridge
That project was definitely not design-build. It was a mess but it did result in a very nice, albeit expensive, bridge.
What was a mess? LOL
A pedestrian bridge that cost $26 million, almost twice the original estimate. That’s a mess to me.
Design build means the owner just hires a Contractor.
The contractor (general) retains engineers, and all the subs needed to complete the job. I doubt there are many contractors that have in-house design teams and crews for all the divisions needed for a large project.
Personally as an engineer, I’ve had great experience with design-build, and it can be a cost savings. This is assuming that you have an experienced and competent contractor leading the project.
Well, my experience with design-build is where an owner solicits RFPs from design-build entities and the firms show their ideas of the complete design and the cost. The entities that propose already consist of a contractor and an engineering firm in a partnership. When the owner accepts a proposal, they are hiring the contractor/engineer group not just the contractor.
Some large construction companies do have in-house design capabilities but most of the time, it is a contractor teaming with an engineering company. The contractor does handle the subcontracting for the projects.
Design-build can save money because it saves time. But, it is so different from design-bid-build that it does require a a contractor that knows how to do it.
when I saw a 2000 ft pier, piles spaced 50 ft (40×2=80, throw in 20 more for the extra wing, 100 piles total aprox.), knowing the pier I was on was 58 bents at 9 pile a bent (yes 24″ octagonal), with no pier moorings system and a far less electrical system, that ran 110M, I was like who’s fooling who?
I wish you’d state your thesis/position right up front. I can’t tell what your actual point is here or what you think should be done differently. I suspect I would agree with you, but the piece kind of rambles so it’s hard to tell. Can you please state your position plainly in 1-2 sentences?
My point was in these lines:
“The cost factor might make people think again about what they really need in a new pier and it might just be a plain new pier just like the old pier. That might be doable. For now, what is proposed is not doable at that price.”
Thank you for your commentary. I can’t say much about price either way except to wonder if comparing freeway bridges to a structure built in water may not be comparable? More importantly, building what we already have, “a plain new pier just like the old pier” doesn’t broaden the appeal to residents and visitors. I see the new pier as an opportunity to reimagine and expand the use of the pier beyond fishing and a walk. A more inviting pier will be a draw to tourism which brings in commerce. A plain fishing pier will not enhance commerce beyond what we already have. Quality costs more, that much I know. The cheapest solution isn’t always the best. If, in any case, we are to pay for a pier in the multi-millions, it would be worth it to spend more to provide a remarkable experience. There won’t be a second opportunity in our lifetimes to make it better; let’s do it now. I fully expect the design to devolve a bit from what we see in the video, but please don’t drag it down to simply repeat the old design.
Ditch the “second level”.
Keep it simple.
Keep the costs down.