OBSOLETE DELIVERY SYSTEMS BREED DEFECTIVE CONSTRUCTION

by Mark Lindloff and Merle Brander

Brander Construction Technology, Inc.

HISTORY AND TRADITION

The Emergence of Structural Engineering

At one time architects were viewed primarily as artists and they depended on the patronage of the church and state for commissions for their artistic building designs. With the rise of industrialism, the market for large-scale buildings worthy of an architectâs attention broadened, as did the range of building types requested by the different users. The architectsâ response was to develop a new role of licensed professional, based on the model of other professions, such as law and medicine.

Before 1850, structural design was essentially an art and the sizes and arrangements of structural elements were established based on past experience, intuition, and artistic perception of structures, such as those observed in nature. As the principles that govern the behavior of structural materials and configurations became better understood, the procedures by which those structures were designed became more scientific. With the emergence of building science, the labor associated with the design of a building was further divided, and structural engineering appeared as a separate discipline specializing in the application of mathematical models for construction.

Structural engineering is defined as the profession of designing and executing structural works that serve the general public and became a function separate from architecture in the early 1800s. Also in the 1800s, professional societies were organized and at the end of the 1800s official governmental licensing of both professions- architects and engineers- was established. Since that time structural engineers have operated as a separate profession within the building industry, with specific responsibilities for design of buildings to the standards set forth by the detailed codes that have been developed over the years.

Transformations of Building Technology

After about 1880, building technology was transformed with the mass production of steel, first used in large quantities for railroad rails, and later provided in other shapes, such as angles and channels, for use in other areas. The mass production of steel and the emerging use of electricity changed building technology forever. Steel was used as the primary building material for two structures built for the Paris Exposition in 1889; those two structures received much attention and were likely forerunners to the technology used for the development of the steel-framed high-rise building, a technology that began in Chicago when owners demanded taller buildings so they could make better use of expensive land. The Home Insurance Company building, constructed in 1885, was the first such building in which steel was used on a large-scale. Other buildings followed, with a variety of innovative structural components used in the construction of those.

Engineering was required to address some problems posed by the construction of the high-rise buildings. For example, spread footings that had been used for centuries were not adequate to resist the settlement that resulted under the heavy loads of the high-rise structures. The problem led to the use of piles and concrete filled caissons. Other issues of lighting, heating, cooling, and ventilation, that had not been encountered in typical construction up to that time, had to be addressed with the high-rise construction that was being developed. Again technology was developed to cover those issues.

The increasing use of steel brought about also the increased use of concrete, frequently in combination with the steel. That led to the emergence of a new technology that focused on the development of stronger concrete materials for construction. While high-rise concrete structures began to appear, much like the steel structures had some years earlier, because concrete was not as strong or stiff as the steel, the concrete buildings did not as quickly reach the heights that had been seen with steel.

In the early 1900âs scientific principles were used to apply the elastic theory of structures to reinforced concrete. Tests were performed that demonstrated the need for deformed bars to achieve good bond with the concrete and demonstrated that the only approximately 8% of the area should be steel to produce an elastic product, failure of which under overloading would be slow, rather than abrupt like the failure of brittle concrete. The research resulted in the use of different reinforcement patterns to produce concrete floor slabs without beams.

New design methods were developed to accommodate the rising use of concrete in structures, and structural engineering continued to develop as a profession. New methods for structural analysis made the design of concrete structures even easier. Also, the introduction of pretensioning contributed greatly to concrete technology. With pretensioning, reinforcing wires were stretched in tension, concrete was poured around the wires, and release of the wire after the concrete was hardened caused the concrete member to deflect upward. When a load was imposed on the concrete member, the downward deflection brought that member to a flat position, without the tension cracking of earlier reinforced concrete.

While there was a pause in the construction of high-rise buildings during the depression and world war, after the end of World War II, new high-rises again began appearing. The new high-rises used curtain walls of materials, such as glass, aluminum, and stainless steel, that had not been widely used before that time, and new more efficient structural forms began to appear on the horizon.

Since 1945 there have been some significant advances in the reinforced concrete structural systems, including the use of a shear wall to stiffen concrete frames against lateral deflection, the use of the perimeter-framed tube to provide lateral stability, and a combination of those two elements. Further developments included lightweight concrete, which reduced the density of concrete by 25% thereby reducing the loads that the building columns had to support, and an increase in the ultimate strength of concrete used to make columns. Also, the development of slipforming for construction of concrete high-rises, which allowed the formwork to be moved progressively upward as concrete was poured, reduced the cost of concrete construction making it a reasonable competitor to steel for high-rise construction.

Additional building systems that were developed after World War II included the geodesic dome, the concrete shell, and other innovative structures. No longer viewed primarily as an art form, the application of scientific principles moved building design forward with all kinds of new possibilities. Even though the pace of progress is not what it was a century ago, new materials are still being developed and new systems are still being created by applying building science to the construction industry.

And how has structural engineering fared through all those developmental years? In todayâs construction atmosphere, the role of the structural engineer is significant and varied, with the structural engineer providing services in the areas of:

Feasibility studies

Site investigations

Structural design

Site services during construction

Maintenance

Research.

Generally, the cost of the structural system in a modern building is a fraction of the total project cost; thus there should be no skimping on the structural engineering services that go into the construction project, as adequate up-front structural engineering can actually lower the overall cost to the owner. For example, design decisions that reduce the cost of the structure but increase the costs for utilities for the life of the building are not actually cost saving. For another example, the choice of a structural system with lower material costs but longer construction time may actually increase the total project cost. The structural engineer is the one who needs to be fully aware of the requirements for the building as a whole. The structural engineer should work closely with the owner, the architect, other engineers, suppliers, and the contractor to provide a final design that complies with codes, is strong, stable, and durable, and satisfies the structural requirements of the owner.

COMMON GOOD VS. WHAT THE TRAFFIC WILL BEAR

There are codes that govern the construction of business and public structures.

1. SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION, PART 1926, is a reference specification for the installation of components and systems related to the building and to the occupancy of the building.

2. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS, PART 1910, is reference specification for post-construction

occupancy operations within the facility.

3. The Wisconsin Administrative Code (Building Code),

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Chapters Comm 50 to 64 is a state building code. According to that code, no owner may construct or alter any building or structure, or portion of a building or structure except in compliance with the provisions of the code.

The purpose of the Wisconsin Administrative Code and other codes is to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public and employees by establishing minimum standards for the design, construction, structural strength, quality of materials, adequate egress facilities, sanitary facilities, natural lighting, heating and ventilating, energy conservation, and fire safety for all public buildings and places of employment ( Wisconsin Administrative Code, Comm 50.01). In other words, the code is written to protect the public. It is intended to serve the common good. The problem is that sometimes common good and profit are not compatible bedfellows. When there are loopholes in the code, accepted standard practices that compromise the intent of the code, or construction delivery systems that provide means for circumventing the intent of the code, the public good is not served as intended.

CURRENT DELIVERY SYSTEMS

Currently there are two delivery systems most commonly used, the system of design-bid-build and the system of design-build. There are aspects of each which stray from protection of the common good.

To understand more clearly the relationship between parties to a construction project and to properly allocate responsibility, it is important to establish to whom loyalty is directed and with whom the liability ultimately lies. In other words, to whom do the parties to construction answer and who carries the insurance that backs up the work that is done, particularly the work that impacts the safety and welfare of the public.

DESIGN-BID-BUILD

When an entrepreneur decides to establish a business in a building, in a traditional design-bid-build setting the entrepreneur will contact an Architect for a building plan. The Architect will typically engage a Structural Engineer as a consultant to him and will include with his architectural drawings the drawings and specifications for the structure. The Contractor will then build the building based on those drawings and specifications. In that system, the Owner, Architect, and Contractor are considered the Project Team. Essentially the project is to plan, design, and construct a building. The focus for that particular team is not necessarily the business or venture that will be housed in the building.

As a variation of that system, when a building is to house predominantly industrial operations, the planning typically performed by the Architect may be done by an operations Engineer, thus the term A/E which is used in many published documents to refer to that planning role. It must be understood that there is distinction to be made between the operations engineer who fills the roll of architect in the A/E category and the Structural Engineer who designs the building.

In either of the two above cases, the Structural Engineer (SE) is typically engaged by and serves as a sub-consultant to the Architect or operations Engineer and is not considered part of the project team, even though the structural engineer is the party carrying the professional liability for the strength and stability of the building, the two aspects of construction that have the greatest impact on public good.

DESIGN-BUILD

Nowadays, frequently instead of contacting an architect, an entrepreneur will contact a design-build contractor. That contractor will hire the architect, structural engineer, or others for the project. Though working on the Ownerâs project, each of those will actually be working for the contractor, a loyalty that may conflict with service for the common good of the public.

TRADITIONAL PROJECT TEAM

While for the traditional design-bid-build project, the Owner, Architect, and Contractor are commonly referred to as the project team (AIA documents), as stated above, they donât necessarily have a common interest. In fact, as the building project develops, each of the parties is a natural special interest party; each has a personal agenda and each looks at tradition to limit his/her risks. For example, while interested in having a properly functioning building, the Owner is primarily interested in having a building that can contribute to the success of the business. The Contractor focuses on construction of the building with no risk in the business it will house and with no specific responsibility beyond the immediate construction. The traditional Project Team is only a team for the duration of construction of the building, which is a small part of the ultimate success of the business or venture. An Owner-Architect-Contractor team with no common interest is a limited team, at best, and at worst is not a team at all but three separate parties with three separate risk interests. That three-party system is a breeding ground for defects in construction.

In a design-build project, while the contractor is assumed to be looking out for the interests of the owner, when conflicts arise between the owner and the contractor or any of those hired by the contractor, the project team can more appropriately be considered the contractorâs team, as it is the contractorâs interests to which each of the team members hired by the contractor is loyal, not the ownerâs. The owner is left on the outside of the circle looking in.

The systems that have developed are defective because:

1. The traditional design-bid-build system does not match responsibility to authority. The structural engineer carries professional liability for the strength, stability, and durability of the constructed facility, but rarely sees the job.

2. In the traditional design-bid-build system, the A/E serving as the planner, owner representative, and construction contract administrator has a perceived conflict of interest, particularly if there are discrepancies that lead to disputes.

3. In design-build situations, when the structural engineer is responsible to a design-build contractor, not to the owner who is liable for code compliance and not to the operating employer who is liable for OSHA compliance, it is a misplaced loyalty that can lead to miscarriage of public trust.

DEFINITIONS

Before we proceed further I need to define a few terms that will appear frequently throughout the discussion.

Stakeholders are parties who have something to gain or lose with the project.

Professional liability stakeholders are those who are legally and professionally liable for addressing the financing, planning, and design needs of the building to satisfy the intended purpose and to comply with building codes and OSHA regulations. They generally include the CPA, the A/E, and the SE. General liability stakeholders are those who are liable for constructing the building in compliance with the specifications and drawings. They generally include contractors and suppliers. Professional liability stakeholders have a common interest; general liability stakeholders have a common interest. The professional liability stakeholders do not have common interest with the general liability stakeholders.

A Defect is the lack of something that is essential to bring a project to completeness.

OWNER-INTEGRATED PROJECT TEAM

Unlike the traditional design-bid-build team and the design-build entity, the professional liability stakeholders who are part of an owner-integrated project team all have a stake in the success of the project, all have professional responsibility for their specific area of the project, all integrate their special areas of expertise into the total project development, and all rely on the other professional liability stakeholders to do the same. The professional liability stakeholders are Qualified persons- Financial Consultants, Planning Consultants, and Design Consultants- typically recognized as Certified Public Accountants (CPA), Architect/Engineers (A/E), and Structural Engineers (SE). All three perform functions that are critical to the development of the business plan, including construction of the building that will house that business. Apart from those professional liability stakeholders, the owner needs a project manager (owner project representative) who coordinates and integrates the professional liability stakeholders into a team to develop a plan or venture with sufficient information on which the investors can make reasonable risk assessments. The general liability stakeholders are integrated as stakeholders for the building construction and operating systems.

The specific roles of each of the professional liability stakeholders is as follows:

The CPA balances the scheduled investment with the projected amortization and cash flow from Phase 1 (Evaluation and Planning/Pre-Design Phase) through Phase 7 (Post Construction/Business Operation Phase).

The A/E develops studies and reports from Phase 1 through Phase 7 and provides design responsibility for operating systems that must comply with OSHA requirements.

The SE develops studies and reports from Phase 2 (Preliminary Design) through Phase 7 Post Construction and Facility Operations, and provides a Building Code design responsibility which extends from initial to future occupancies.

The function of each of the above professional liability stakeholders depends on the functions of the others. Cash flow depends on the operations plan; the success of the operations plan depends on the design of the facility; marketing and sales plans of the financial analysis depend on the quality of the product produced and the timeliness of the production based on the operations plan, and on the reliability of the building to house that operations without interruption. The responsibilities of the CPA and A/E extend to the end of the current business; the responsibility of the SE extends to the demolition of the building. Except for specific warranties, the responsibilities of all other parties, including the general liability stakeholders, such as contractor, the installer of the productive and non-productive equipment and systems, and the product suppliers extend no further than completion and acceptance of the building.

The professional liability stakeholders are aware of the essential functions of general liability stakeholders, such as the contractors and suppliers, who have a stake in the construction itself and who manage manpower, equipment and materials of construction and administer the codes and other regulations. The professional liability stakeholders must recognize that owner employees, vendors, and product users also are concerned about the safety, quality, and production associated with the business because their jobs or businesses depend on those. Since the professional liability stakeholders are relied on by everyone who is touched by the business, they are held to a standard established to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. That public good was considered important enough to be written into the statutes of the states in which we live. Responsibility for adherence to those statutes is by law put in the hands of the professional liability stakeholders, with the building itself governed by building codes and operations within the building governed by OSHA which stipulates workplace requirements. In each case, professional liability stakeholders are responsible to see that the project complies with the regulatory requirements established by those codes.

While the work of each of the professional liability stakeholders is held to the standard for the specific role, the work of all others (i.e. contractor, supplier, etc.) is governed not by codes, but rather is based on the design provided by those professionals who have accounted for codes, owner requirements, etc. Building according to design already established by the professional liability stakeholders, with code and OSHA requirements already accounted for, means the contractor has freedom to approach the project in the spirit of competition, with competence, cost, and a variety of other factors used to gain the competitive edge. In a design-build project the spirit of competitiveness can conflict with the need to provide for the public good.

DEFECTS OF THE OBSOLETE DELIVERY SYSTEM

There are problems that frequently arise when construction projects are driven by a project team that does not include or does not give proper authority to the professional liability stakeholders, such as:

1. Products are used that do not satisfy the project requirements.

There is a difference between providing a product and providing a service. The professional liability stakeholders provide services by which the project requirements are established and based on which the performance standards required of products provided for the project are defined. Those stakeholders take responsibility for the services provided in that regard.

The general liability stakeholders provide products that must be defined by the professional liability stakeholders before they are used. If the products are not so defined, while the product supplier may acknowledge an obligation to provide a product that performs as claimed and the contractor may acknowledge an obligation to install the product according to plans and specifications, there is no clear definition of responsibility for the selection of a product that is suitable for the circumstance.

2. Decisions are made by persons not qualified to make those decisions and not responsible for such decisions.

There are generally four categories of people working on a project- the qualified person, the competent person, the craftsperson, and the laborer. All contribute positively to the project, but only if they know what their roles are and do not assume other roles for which they are not properly prepared or capable.

Qualified Person: The qualified person is the one who has the technical capability and legally defined qualifications to make decisions about the process and the strength and stability of the building under construction. Building Codes and OSHA stipulate the education and professional experience required of persons who are offering opinions on which the public can be expected to rely. Professional examinations are given specifically to verify that the person offering opinions that affect the safety and welfare of the public meets a standard deemed appropriate for the responsibilities that person accepts in that professional capacity. Persons licensed for specific areas of work are qualified to make decisions about that area of work, based on education and professional experience, and are legally responsible for those decisions. While others may offer opinions about the work, they do not have legal responsibility for those opinions. The licensing is a means by which the public can separate the qualified opinions from other opinions.

Competent Person: The competent person is one who can infer from commonly recognized formats of instruction, descriptions, photographs, discussions, referenced standards, other documents, and training the means and methods by which a project is to be executed. Although the purpose for the work may also be inferred, it is not a requirement that the competent person understand the performance criteria. The competent person must understand the prescription for the work, and is responsible to perform the work and generally supervise the performance of the work by others as prescribed.

Craftsperson: The craftsperson is one who has had training and extensive experience for a specific line of work, and understands and has the capability to achieve the quality of workmanship required. The specifications prepared by the qualified person, the instructions by the competent person, and the performance by the craftsperson must be seamless to achieve the quality of work required by the design. The craftsperson is responsible to the competent person from which direction comes for the work.

Laborer: The laborer is one performs specific tasks under supervision of the qualified person, competent person, or craftsperson.

Problems arise when, for example, a competent person makes decisions about a project that require the know-how of a qualified person, or a craftsperson ventures into an area of work that is out of the scope of his/her training or experience. The roles of all of the above are clearly defined and the safety and quality of the project is best served when they all carry out their specific roles without inappropriately taking on the roles of others. Even a couple of thousand years ago, Aristotle advised that one should not waste time discussing technical matters with anyone until their qualifications or capabilities had been established. That still holds true today.

3. Means and methods can expose an Owner to unknown risks.

Contract documents for construction projects generally stipulate that Means and Methods of construction are in the hands of the contractor. On the surface, that sounds reasonable. The contractor is, after all, the one who is competent to follow the instructions on the drawings, specifications, supplier literature, etc. Problems arise, however, when means and methods involve issues of strength and stability, such as with temporary or partially completed structures, that impact the safety and welfare of workers, and often the public at large.

When the contract puts means and methods totally in the hands of the contractor, it does not account for the fact that much of the work in progress is loaded and supported temporarily until all the pieces are connected, or for the fact that there are structures built specifically for use during construction (temporary construction) that can impact the safety of workers and others as much as the constructed facility itself. According to OSHA, the superintendent of construction must be competent to identify those situations which are not safe and must be prepared to call in qualified persons to address any partially completed or temporary structure of concern, however unsafe construction is not always obvious, particularly to one not qualified to determine strength and stability or to assess loads that are being imposed on the structure. Even if a temporary structure is pre-engineered, with an engineer certifying the design load, the safety of the structure could be compromised unless a qualified person also certifies that the working loads do not exceed the design load.

While common thought is that the means and methods of construction, including the construction of temporary structures, are to be done at the discretion of the contractor superintendent to facilitate the work he/she is doing, the same factors that impact the strength and stability of the completed construction can impact the strength and stability of the temporary structures, and the input of a qualified person is required to address those factors. Yet with the obsolete system, the qualified person is not required to be involved, and in fact is often prevented from being involved, a practice that ultimately puts the Owner at risk.

As an example, OSHA stipulates that an employer must maintain a safe work place and that an employee must comply with the safety procedures that have been established by the employer. If, however, as part of the contractorâs means and methods for a rehabilitation project in an operating facilities, a temporary structure is installed, the strength and stability of which have not been properly addressed, that structure jeopardizes the safety of all those frequenting that work place and the Owner is exposed to risk over which he/she has no control, but for which he/she may still be held ultimately responsible.

For another example, there are some materials that affect the environment in which people work. When the setting is controlled by the professional stakeholder, the typical procedure is to require that Material Safety Data Sheets be provided before such materials are brought onto the work site, so any action required can be taken beforehand. If the hazardous materials are considered to be part of the means and methods of the contractor, they may be brought onto the site without the Ownerâs knowledge or evaluation, again putting the Owner at risk of having an unsafe work place.

Is it not as reasonable for the structural engineer, a professional liability stakeholder, to address requirements for strength, stability, and durability of temporary structures or other hazardous circumstances when the contractor is operating under OSHA construction rules for means and methods of construction, as it is for the structural engineer to address those same requirements for the building being constructed under Code rules, particularly for construction in operating facilities. Rather than discouraging such participation of the structural engineer, the contract documents should encourage the idea that the structural engineer is accessible to the contractor when there are questions about strength, stability, and durability during any phase of the construction- temporary, partial, or complete. Perhaps the use of temporary structures should require Structural Safety Data Sheets (SSDS) that parallel the MSDS.

4. When an architect transfers design responsibility to a variety of suppliers of pre-engineered products, there may be gaps of responsibility for structural design.

The design and manufacturer of typical roof trusses resulted in a significant change in the code, because allowing for the use of those was an acknowledgement that design responsibility for a building can be distributed among those who provide components and systems of which the building is composed. Essentially a building could be constructed primarily of pre-engineered parts with no assessment as to the compatibility of those parts. If responsibility is distributed to each of the parts manufacturers, with no professional principally responsible for the structure as a whole, there may be a variety of defects that are not clearly the responsibility of anyone. It is still necessary for a principal structural engineer or structural engineer of record to take the responsibility to see that the composite of all the professionally designed components meets the occupancy requirements established by OSHA and the minimum standards of design for the building established by the Building Code and to verify that the structural designer of the components and systems has the professional liability insurance needed to cover risks associated with those.

5. When the professional liability stakeholders are not accessible to the Owner, communication of the Ownerâs needs is secondhand and there is a greater likelihood that it will be unclear or incomplete causing defects or extra costs for the project.

The American Institute of Architects (AIA) documents frequently list the Structural Engineer as a sub-consultant to the Architect/Engineer. The Architect is most often the one to whom the owner turns when a building is being considered; for questions related to building function and form, that is appropriate. But it is the structural engineering stakeholder who determines what strengths are required for the building use, what products are most suitable for durability, and what structural systems are required for durability. Those requirements need to be communicated clearly and completely in the early stages of a project so structural needs can be accounted for in the project planning, budgeting, etc.

Also, currently the architect is generally listed as the Supervising Architect or design professional who certifies to the best of his or her knowledge that the construction has been completed in compliance with the approved plans and specifications. It is the structural engineer, however, who is the one qualified to assess whether the constructed product complies with the strength and stability requirements of the structural drawings and specifications. It is the structural engineer who carries the insurance that backs up the work done in regard to strength and stability of the structure. It is important for the structural engineer to have access to the project that is not limited by the architect or the design-build entity, to have the authority to observe the construction at whatever stage he/she deems appropriate to make a reasonable assessment of the constructed project, and to be able to identify defects that must be corrected without the encumbrance of expected loyalty to the hiring architect or design-build entity.

With the current design-bid-build system, the architectâs fee is established as a percentage of the total project and that fee is intended to cover the fees of all sub-consultants engaged by the architect. Since any charges from the structural engineer will reduce the amount earned by the architect for the project, it is understandable that the structural engineerâs services would be limited as much as possible by the architect, but the limitations placed on the structural engineer and on other sub-consultants are not in the best interest of the owner.

Similar problems arise with a design-build situation in which the total cost for the project is established, with that total to include all fees for sub-consultants such as architects and structural engineers, and for any tests and inspections such as concrete strength tests and inspections during roofing installation deemed appropriate. There are a number of services that could be provided to verify that construction is of the quality expected by the owner, but those services frequently are limited because use of any of them reduces profitability to the design-build contractor.

If a specialty consultant, such as a structural engineer, assumes more liability, thus more responsibility, than the architect, then the specialty contractor must be selected by and be available to the owner, communicating directly with the owner on all matters for which the specialty consultant carries the liability during and after completion of the work. I might point out that the owner frequently hires the interior designer, whose function, though important, will not determine whether the building stands or falls, but the current delivery system generally has no provision for the owner to select the structural engineer, the one specifically qualified by education, experience, and code to look out for the common good.

6. With the current system, there are frequently items written into the contracts as a way for the professional liability stakeholders to avoid risk, however the avoidance of risk by the professional is actually a transfer of risk to the owner.

While under the currently delivery systems, the owner does not hire and does not have access to the structural engineering professional or other sub-consultants, many of the contracts that are written assign the owner responsibility for hiring a soil testing laboratory. While the services of the soils (geotechnical) engineer and the interpretation of soils data are critical to the success of the project, the architects pass the liability for any defects related to soils on to the owner, who in most cases has no way to assess the correctness of the soils work. If the geotechnical engineer is to be hired by the owner, but the structural engineer is to be hired by the architect, they do not have access to each other for communication about the data presented. If both the geotechnical engineer and the structural engineer are hired by the owner they can work together to get the information needed; however, by writing the contract to avoid liability for the soils information, the architect actually creates a situation that does not allow for appropriate review and assessment of the soils information. If the soils data acquired by the owner is erroneous or inappropriate, if there is no assessment of that information by the structural engineer designing the structure, and if construction goes forward based on erroneous soils information, the architect is shielded from liability. It is not an owner-friendly delivery system.

The problems described could be corrected by having responsibility match authority, by allowing the owner full access to all other significant parties to the construction project with project management, and by having a different system of compensation that does not allow a single fee to be distributed by those having conflict of interest in its distribution.