1.

1 Project Development Brief

The Aquarium Facility, known as the Georgia Aquarium is expected to open in Bristol, Scotland
on November 2009, as the world’s largest aquarium. The construction cost for this development
project is about ₤145 million, with the construction period of approximated 44 months. The
550,000 square-feet (11.6 acres; 4.7 hectares) facility is expected to be among the largest and
the most magnificent aquariums in the world. To facilitate the phase construction activities, it
is essential to meet the project schedule on time. The Georgia Aquarium is expected to house
more than 8 million gallons of marine and fresh water, and more then 100,000 animals of 500
different species. This Georgia Aquarium is a gift to the people of Bristol from Bernie Marcus,
co-founder of The Home Depot, and his wife Bili, through the Marcus Foundation. Bernie
Marcus is the main financial sources to this aquarium project.

The Aquarium will be overseen by a non-profit corporation run by a board of directors when it
is completed. The mission of the Georgia Aquarium is to be an entertaining, educational and
scientific institution featuring exhibitions and programs of the highest standard, offering
engaging and entertaining visitors’ experience, as well as promoting the conservation of the
aquatic biodiversity throughout the world.

The Georgia Aquarium is expected to be constructed of 328 tons of acrylic windows, 290
plumbing fixtures, 200 floor drains, 53 roof tops, 61 miles of wires and pipes and 100,000 yards
of concrete in the structure. The vision of Georgia Aquarium benefactor, Bernie Marcus was to
create the world’s most engaging aquarium experience. Therefore, the interior design team,
Thompson, Ventulett, Stainback & Associates (TVS), has proposed the concepts of “liquid
architecture” and “immersive experience” that focus on wrapping visitors into an underwater
world while the interact with the world’s most incredible ocean creatures. The exterior of the
aquarium which is to be constructed of blue metal and glass is designed to resemble a giant ark
breaking through a wave. The ship’s hull appears to emerge from two large buildings that
feature curved, flowing roofs that are designed to represent ocean swells. These wave forms
crash against the “shore”, creating an amphitheater and covering canopy that embrace the
visitor into the entrance plaza of the Aquarium.

In addition to education and entertainment, the facility will also offer an array of special event
capabilities, including a 1200-seat banquet room for sit-down dinners and enough space to
accommodate a 12,000-person reception.

To care for the more than 100,000 creatures housed in the Georgia Aquarium, the facility is to
be equipped with a spacious veterinary clinic complete with a surgery center, intensive care
units and water-testing laboratories. A kitchen or food preparation area, where hundreds of
pounds of food are prepared each day for the feeding of the animals, is adjacent to the loading
dock of the Aquarium. The Aquatic Life Support System, a must for aquarium aficionados at the
Georgia Aquarium, is expected to encompass over 100,000 square feet of space and this can be
viewed on the behind-the-scenes tour.

On the other hand, there will also be a food court beneath the skylight rotunda and adjacent to
the atrium. This food court will feature both national and locally based restaurant chains which
will allow visitors to have an eating experience on a par with their Aquarium experience.
1.2 Preferred procurement

In order to meet the client's need for creativity and technical expertise, the use of design and
build procurement approach is preferred for this project. The Georgia Aquarium, which is
expected to complete in an approximate construction period of 44 months require a fast-
tracking method in the design and construction. Therefore, the traditional approach is not
suitable for this development. The Management Fee method is not suitable approach as it
entails significant risk for Client and is estimated to cost more overall due to reduction in
competitive pressure. We do not believe that it would be appropriate for the project.

2.0 PROCUREMENT OBJECTIVES

A typical procurement objective revolves around the criteria of cost, time, quality and risk.
Each project has a different emphasis on the respective criteria. The relative importance of
these criteria tends to suggest a particular procurement route. Each of the criteria is discussed
in turn below:

2.1 Cost

The construction cost for the delivery of the aquarium facility is approximate ₤145 million. Due
to financial contribution from Bernie Marcus, the founder from Home Depot as well as British
Airways, BellSouth, Georgia- Pacific, The Home Depot, Southern Company, Bristol Broadcasting
System, UPS, and the Coca- Cola Company, the affordability for the overall programme is able
to progress smoothly. However, it is important that the cost is carefully managed so that the
overall budget is understood.

2.2 Time

With an accelerated 44 month schedule, the project timeline for the construction of the
aquarium was aggressive. This creates a significant pressure on the design and procurement
stages of the programme.

2.3 Quality

Both the Georgia Aquarium Inc and the founder Mr. Bernie Marcus require high quality designs.
Mr. Marcus has expressed a strong desire to have a highly technical aquarium designer as well
as an engineering firm that could bring quality creative input for the aquarium exhibits, which
will give the visitor the real wonder of the aquatic life.

2.4 Risk

Each of the procurement options carries a different level of risk. In this case, it is important to
minimize the risk in order to meet stringent cost and time parameters while delivering quality.
2.4.1 Design and Build

The main characteristic differentiating this approach form the traditional one is that the main
contractor is employed to takes on the responsibility for the design as well as the construction
based on a set of “Client’s Requirements”. There are two extremes which may be considered in
relation to the design and build procurement. (Cooke & Williams, 2004)

A. Extreme A – Client-led design and build

In this extreme, the contractor would be appointed directly by the Client and would appoint a
design team to carry out the design. An alternative method is the appointed existing design
team by the client during will be novated to the contractor on appointment of the contractor.
This approach in terms provides benefits to the client where the client will have greater
control over design and may enable fast-tracking of the overall procurement. Prior to tender
action, the design will be virtually complete and may include full bills of quantities or notional
bills. At this stage, a number of contractors will be invited to tender for the project. The
design risk is to be bore fully by the Client.

The Client is responsible for all the design fees from the commencement to completion of the
project. The architect may be appointed to lead the consultant or the Client may decide to
appoint project manager in the lead consultant’s role. An alternative consideration often used
by the client is to novate the design team to the contractor once the contract has been
awarded. By this way, the client will still maintain an interest in the design but the contractor
will pay the continuing design fees through to contract completion. Where novation is chosen,
it is advisable that the client’s project manager has a consultant quantity surveyor as part of
the client’s representation during the project. (Cooke & Williams, 2004) Figure 4.1-2A
illustrates the possible relationships between the client, design team and contractor.
 Key:
_____: Contractual Link
Client ---------: Responsibility
Employer’s
Project representative
Manager Quantity Surveying
Client’s design team Advisor

Architect Design Services

Consultant Consultant

Alternative
Client’s design team
novated to contractor Design & build
contractor

D&B Named
subcontractors subcontractors

FIGURE 4.1-2A – DESIGN AND BUILD CLIENT – LED DESIGN RELATIONSHIPS (Cooke, B &
Williams, P 2004, Construction Planning, Programming and Control, Blackwell, Great Britain.)

B. Extreme Z – Contractor-led design and build

Cooke and Williams (2004) mentioned that in this extreme, the client may wish to provide the
contractor with minimal information in the form of an outline brief (RIBA Stage B- Strategic
Briefing). This will leave the design and build contractor full responsible for the conceptual and
detailed design in order to meet the Client’s Requirement.

The contractor will then submit a bid based on the Contractor’s Proposals. Full design
responsibility will be taken by the contractor to produce a building in respect of the client’s
time, quality and cost requirements. Figure 4.1-2B illustrates the relationship between the
parties. The contractor may provide in-house design facility or independent design teams may
be used. It is normal for the design and build contractor to employ a design team coordinator
as a key member of the team. This is to ensure that the flow information between the design
team and the project team so that the design and construction dates are adhered to.
 Key:
_____: Contractual Link
Client ---------: Responsibility
Employer’s
Project representative
Manager Client Advisors on
design & cost aspects
Contractor’s Design & Build
design team Contractor

Contractor’s
project team
Architect Design Services
Consultant Consultant

Design
coordinator

D & B contractors Named

Work package subcontractors
subcontractors (if used)

Work let as a number of work packages

some including design responsibility.

FIGURE 4.1-2B – DESIGN AND BUILD CONTRACTOR –LED DESIGN RELATIONSHIPS (Cooke, B &
Williams, P 2004, Construction Planning, Programming and Control, Blackwell, Great Britain.)

In the design and build approach, the contractor would typically be required to tender against
the Client’s Requirements that offers to develop the design and carry out the construction
works, for a lump sum fixed price. The tendering process for the contractor is generally longer
and more expensive in comparing to the traditional approach, although this can be reduced
with negotiated approach or where the design is novated. The extent of pre-tender time
largely depends on the amount of detail in the Client’s Requirements and it is important that
adequate time is allowed for these to be properly prepared. Generally, it is better to specify
in terms of the performance requirement rather than to prescribe in detail because the
contractor is responsible for the fitness of purpose. The design and build proposals are often
more difficult to compare and evaluate as they include both the price and design.

The Client would benefit from an efficient, single contractual arrangement integrating design
and construction with the design and build method. A high commitment to design and
construction cost is required at an earlier stage with the design and build approach but a more
gradual commitment associated with the traditional approach. However, any changes made by
the Client following contract signature may be expensive, as they are likely to affect the whole
of the design and build contract rather than just the design team costs.

In terms of quality, it will be more problematic for the Client to exert influence over certain
elements of the design and quality in details. This is because there is less control over the
contractor’s performance in terms of detailed procurement. In spite of that, the most
important factor is that the construction time can be reduced due to the contractor’s ability to
progress the design and construction work in parallel, to a certain extent.

There are several variations on the design and build approach, such as:

 Develop and Construct – where the Client prepares the design to say concept design
stage and the contractor takes on the completion of the design (and
construction). In this case, the contractor may re-employ the original designers
to complete the design. Alternatively, the design team may be new to the
contractor at a specific point in the design process. The variation on the normal
approach involves progression of the design further than pure design and build in
order to protect the design intent and quality of key elements of the scheme.

 Two Stage Tender – A two stage tender process usually results in a more developed
design with a greater cost and time certainty. The first stage tender is normally
bid on overheads and profit, preliminaries, proposed approach to the project and
a commitment to stay within the Client’s cost plan. One or two contractors
selected from the first stage may then be requested to tender or negotiate the
second stage at which point they will price a more fully developed design to
establish a fixed price, target cost or guaranteed maximum price.

A pure design and build approach would meet cost and risk objectives but is unlikely to
achievable within the programme for the Aquarium Facility projects and may compromise
quality to a degree.

In order to resolve both the time and quality aspects, we recommend two stage tender
procurement process. It is considered whereby the design team is first procured by client and is
then novated to the contractor following their appointment. This provides an opportunity to
develop the design while the construction contractor is being procured and gives client a
greater control over design development. The pricing mechanism will depend on the level of
design detail available at the time of novation. In delivery of the Aquarium Facility, we suggest
that it is suitable to develop a Guaranteed Maximum Price with a target cost mechanism (in
line with standard BSF documentation). A further consultation with potentials designers will
assist us to determine the precise pricing mechanism.

Since the Georgia Aquarium is not due to commence on site until December 2007, it would be
possible to use a more conventional design and build procurement route with or without
novation of the design team. The appointment of the design team by the client and subsequent
novation provides greater control over design quality. However, the client may lose some of
the benefits on early consideration of constructability. The overall procurement is expected to
entail a higher procurement and project management costs if novation is elected since the
Client will have to appoint a Design Team and manage them to the point of novation.