Teaming and partnering concepts are not new. Many construction projects are successfully completed on schedule and under budget as a result of an informal partnering process often utilized by construction superintendents and owner representatives. These informal negotiation processes (so-called "horse-trading") have promptly and equitably resolved many disputes, discrepancies and changed conditions that arise during construction.

Inflexible rights-based interpretation and administration of contract requirements from owners, design professionals or contractors often lead to a legalistic adversarial response. The less confrontational processes used by teaming and partnering utilize more effective processes to secure contract compliance than by excessive reliance on adversarial and positional negotiation processes generally relied upon by most construction attorneys and claim consultants. Resources are focused to identify and solve project problems rather than restructuring and selecting specific project facts to justify a particular allocation of fault.

The US Army Corps of Engineers and other agencies pioneered the use of partnering and other alternative dispute resolution processes to obtain improved project results. The partnering concept has since been embraced by many construction industry organizations such as Associated General Contractors of America.

Teaming begins with the implementation of partnering concepts during project planning and design phases. Including the owner, designer, interested agencies and affected third parties in the project planning process results in less overall total project cost and fewer adverse impacts on the project and interested stakeholders. Research indicates effective pre-project planning is the single most important activity to reduce overall project costs, with cost savings as high as 20%.

Partnering describes a process where parties entering into an arrangement take deliberate steps to identify mutual goals, establish and improve channels of communication and discuss methods of handling and avoiding controversy, prior to beginning contract performance. This planning is usually accomplished at a preliminary conference called a partnering workshop, involving designated representatives of all interested parties.

Partnering is rapidly gaining acceptance as an effective method to reduce project disputes and the high cost and commitment of resources associated with an adversarial dispute resolution process. Partnering also focuses project resources on processes and behavior that seek to achieve mutual benefit for all parties. Partnering has been rated as one of the most effective approaches available to avoid and resolve disputes in a survey of design professionals, contractors and construction attorneys evaluating industry experience with various dispute avoidance and resolution techniques.

Many public owners are now utilizing partnering on construction projects valued at $5million or more. Partnering is not widely used on smaller construction projects, but owners will likely expand use of partnering, as the costs and benefits involved in the use of partnering is publicized.

Recent experience emphasizes the need for on-going efforts to successfully implement partnering. One shot partnering sessions rarely develop the trust, collaboration and cooperation necessary to successfully address serious problems. Ongoing partnering activities (not necessarily more workshops) are required to get the largest benefit from partnering. The use of dispute review boards may also provide reinforcement of the partnering concept during construction.

Planning and Design. Successful implementation of teaming concepts requires incorporation of partnering concepts into the work performed during project planning, project definition and design activities.

Documents can be prepared most efficiently with the involvement of the owner, user, regulatory agencies and affected parties in the planning and design process.

Project owners are appreciating the benefits of developing open communication and building trust and improved teamwork during the planning and design process. While some believe the higher levels of effort for improved communication and team building during design phase activities will result in higher consultant costs, most observers believe the investment reduces overall consultant costs to complete the technical work.

The cost savings during construction are more significant as additional concerns and recommendations from persons and entities not traditionally involved in the project definition and design process can provide input earlier in the process.

In addition to the constructed project cost savings mentioned above, improved schedule performance, improved quality and less adversarial project relationships and contract administration are also expected as a result of a small investment in early project planning.

Reduction of Overall Project Costs

Construction Industry Institute research indicates significant reductions in total installed project cost from teaming and partnering concepts with a communications focus employed early in the project during design development.

Pre-Project Planning (potential for up to) - 20%
Project Team Building - 7%
Constructability Reviews - 5%
Alternative Dispute Resolution - 2%
Safety Improvement - 2%

Other areas that benefit from teaming and partnering include change order implementation, reduction of claims costs and reduction of project duration. The most significant reason for these substantial cost savings is the opportunity to identify and communicate owner needs and priorities at the earliest possible time, while providing practical experience of construction professionals during the design development phase. Problems or conflicts identified during design development or detailed design review are much less expensive to resolve than during construction. In addition, effective construction communication enhances access to information necessary to all participants on the project to do their work efficiently while reducing re-work and changes in design and construction.

Equitable Dispute Resolution

Disputes, ambiguities and differences of interpretation are not unusual on complex construction projects. The large number of participants and amounts of information exchanged on a typical project may provide hundreds of thousands of communication interfaces where disputes may arise due to misunderstandings, different expectations or lack of information. Teaming and partnering do not necessarily significantly reduce the opportunities for dispute or disagreement, but rather provide a constructive process to prevent differences from growing into unresolved disputes.

Equitable resolution of disputes is a critical element in achieving the potential benefits of the teaming and partnering process. Teaming meetings during design, constructability reviews and partnering sessions will be of little benefit if a decision maker in the dispute resolution process behaves in a manner that frustrates the dual goals of early and equitable dispute resolution. Decades of adversarial designer/contractor or owner/contractor interactions may make it difficult to fulfill professional obligation of independent and unbiased interpretation of contract requirements by design professionals.

Several new ADR procedures are available that also encourage early, more amicable resolution and offer a broad range of processes for resolution. Project team members can work with a facilitator to work out their own solution, use the benefits of step negotiation, and present their dispute before a neutral or panel who will make either a binding or an advisory decision.