How EllisDon, Pomerleau & Bird De-Risk Projects: IPD and Early Contractor Involvement in Atlantic Canada

0:12Welcome back to the Atlantic Construction Podcast. We'd like to thank our current sponsors FCA, Cooke Insurance, and Luminous Labs. We hope you enjoy the episode. Welcome back to the Atlantic Construction Podcast. Really excited today to have a round-table discussion with some fine gentlemen representing EllisDon — as Chief Estimator I have Travis Rudolph — from Pomerleau, Director of Strategic Proposals and Pursuits, Vivek Tomar, and from Bird Construction, Director of Design and Key Accounts, Rick Buhr. So yeah, really excited to

0:46have these gentlemen with us today and looking forward to a great conversation on early contractor involvement and different delivery models for ICI construction projects. So yeah, thanks for being here and giving us your time — a trouble thanks. Thanks for the invite. Yeah, typically we like to start just with a little bit of background of your journey in the industry. Obviously surrounded by experienced veterans today, so you don't have to tell us the whole story, but give us the

1:15Cole's notes and just a little bit about yourself and your journey. I know Travis, you've returned on the show, so thanks for being back. Yeah, yeah, I get to go first, do I? Yeah, your reward there. Yeah, I think my journey was a little more mixed than others. Like, I first when I left school, I was getting into — wanted to be a gym teacher — and so went through school for that, so sort of recreation. Then actually went out and did a little recreation and got into

1:42hospitality for a few years, and it wasn't until probably the late '90s I went back to school and took the construction administration technology course. And from there I've been set — just loved construction ever since. Got into work with a developer, did some stuff at the refinery, and then with a home builder, and then some estimating with flooring and a little bit with drywall, and then got into estimating with the larger contractors for close to the last 20 years, and been estimating on the larger side of things since then. And yeah, going

2:18strong. Yeah, and just before we go to Vivek there — Travis, you were saying earlier about you're going to go to a hockey game, but your son is playing here later this evening at the rink, and you've been working on different buildings on the SM campus for years. That's kind of a neat story — maybe just share the design process for that. That would have been six or seven years ago when they — it's a while. Like, I — it waited a long time. I was telling you, like, as I

2:42walk around the campus, I've been working on so many projects over there over the years — like, I'm going back almost 20 years — as the last person that's kind of been on any major project down there between the facilities, operators, management staff, and different companies, with Aon, with EllisDon, and as people retire and move on — which I've been very fortunate to be part of. The projects — the rink, the rink's a cool one — because at the time, a typical rink, you build it pre-eng, that's just the way to go.

3:10But at that time when they're looking at it, they had a pretty tight budget and steel costs were skyrocketing, so we came up with a concept — let's say, well, look at pre-cast — and it was something that wasn't quite common here. So we partnered with our subcontractor and they came up with some great ideas and proposed it to the university, and got the engineers and consultants on board, and they kind of bought into it. And we hit the target on the budget, and as you

3:36know, they got a beautiful rink out of it. Yeah, in between your son's shifts later this evening, you'll be looking around. I always do, yeah. I sit there, I look around, looking at the — just don't miss a goal if you're looking at the rafters. Yeah, that's true. But no, you're right, I do look around. It's like, oh, what about that? Well, thanks for sharing that. Maybe Vivek, you could share a little bit about your background. Yeah, for me, I am a

4:00second-generation engineer. My father was a longtime engineer with the City of Halifax for many years. He came here in 1970, finished up — refreshed his engineering at Technical University in Nova Scotia, worked for a few smaller consultant firms, and then had a long and good career with the City of Halifax. So with him and his peer group, I had a lot of engineers to be mentors for me, so kind of followed in his footsteps. Yeah, so yeah, graduated

4:27civil engineering at Technical University of Nova Scotia, now Dalhousie University. Entered the workforce and spent almost 22 years in consulting engineering here in Halifax. Started out doing environmental engineering — phase one, phase two environmental site assessments, a little bit of civil engineering on the drainage side and municipal side. Then had an opportunity to work in oil and gas, so worked — all but the same company — worked with oil and gas for four years. I was kind of a project assignment, then worked back to the home office. Again, work

4:59more on the municipal engineering side, and kind of morphed into engineering project management — so managing the schedule of work for the engineering design. Got really good at winning proposals in the civil department, right? And the manager approached me and said, well, why don't you write it for all the departments? And that worked out well, so had a pretty good success rate there, and sort of morphed into the business development manager for the firm I was working for. Nice. And then for the past six years, been with Pomerleau Construction. Kind of

5:29— some people say it's going from the light side to the dark side. Yeah, I'm not sure — quite a few comments I got, probably a few comments from peers about that — but no, it's been a great move. Yeah, I really enjoy the construction side and it's been really rewarding. When did you kind of realize that that was a sweet spot in your career — when, like, for pursuit procurement, writing proposals — like, is that something that you kind of fell into, or is that something you went after, you

5:57pursued? Or did that just sort of transpire and then you realized, okay, this is kind of where my skill set has to reach some flow here? Yeah, okay. Kind of fell into it — in consulting it's always how it goes. It seemed like each department was kind of writing their own proposals to get their own work within consulting, and no one really — and I was winning a lot of work with the City of Halifax for a while — so it's like, oh, you know, really good at analyzing the

6:24requirements, analyzing the fee situations, and kind of plugging in and playing and putting the right pieces together to kind of, yeah, prepare a qualifying bid and a very cost-effective fee solution. And so after doing that, had a pretty good win rate on the civil side and kind of grew into that, expanded from that. Yes. Yeah, thanks for sharing that. So did we save the best for last? Rick, I know we have in the room — so I don't — I don't want to cause any — no pressure. Like, like

6:55all of us, my evolution, I guess, in the industry has been different in that I started out in oceanography at Dal and always thought I wanted to be Jacques Cousteau when I was a kid. And I did that — I got through that program — but I think when I finished, I was working in the labs there and realized that you know, you had to get grants and funding for this to get from A to B. And I

7:25quickly realized I didn't think it was a path I wanted to carry on with. And I had always been artistic as a kid and loved to draw, build models, and things. And so I transitioned into architecture, and I did my master's at Dal, and after I graduated I went to work for Fowler Bauld & Mitchell Architects here in the city, worked there for almost 18 years. And then — I'll reach a world record, yeah, sure, keep

7:56going. Yeah, no, it's okay, you don't have to — that's fine. And then woke up one morning and thought, you know, it was time for a change. And not that I didn't love it — I mean, it was an incredible experience there, and I think it really in many ways shaped my life in the construction world. So I transitioned to a company called Rideau Construction, which then was bought by Bird Construction. And I think when I went there they weren't

8:24quite sure — they just knew that I had quite a varied background, a lot of educational and design experience. And just started working with clients and, in particular, got into doing a lot of work with the universities in Atlantic Canada, and that's a big focus for me. So my role with the company has kind of evolved — there's a lot of, you know, the key account term — it just means that we have a lot of long-standing relationships in Atlantic Canada, so I help support and manage

8:54those, plus look after our pursuit management, business development, and then any design-build work that we do. I have a design team under me, so we do a lot of pre-construction, you know, design-build type projects. So it's a pretty varied role, and I feel very fortunate the company gives me a lot of latitude to have fun and to support clients. Yeah, thanks for sharing that, Rick. It's interesting — you said, you know, maintaining relationships that are local,

9:25and even at the level that you're at, with the complexities and the parties involved, it still kind of remains a pursuit of just relationships and how important they are — whether it's just small-scale business or large-scale, maintaining the relationships. And I think we're very lucky in Atlantic Canada. I mean, relationships here remain strong, and I think a lot of decisions get made on that basis. And it's not just about the dollars and cents, and I think that's

9:58something — you know, that's one of the reasons I love being here — and I don't hear that necessarily from every sector that we're in. But yeah, why do you think that is? Is that culture? Is that because you know you can't get away with anything because it's such a small place? Well, it's very true. I mean, I think I hear that all the time. You know, people always say, your reputation precedes you. And a lot of our clients

10:23they know exactly what you're doing. You know, you're doing a project in Antigonish, and everybody in Fredericton knows what you're doing or how that's going. I mean, it's a small market, and a lot of the people that we work with — they have relationships, they belong to associations, and what happens at those — they have meetings, they talk about what's going well, what's not going well, how people are performing. So it's a small market, and you know, it's just

10:52one of the great things about Atlantic Canada. And you gentlemen are all with companies representing companies that are either national or multinational, whereas most people would see Atlantic Canada as one entity, one geographical — like, you think New Brunswick separate from Newfoundland, and it's all kind of lumped together if you're looking at it from a perspective out west or from the States down south. You know, yeah, in that sense. And I think I find with our clients, even on the proposal side,

11:23they're less interested in what we did in Vancouver or Calgary — they really want to know what have you done locally. And not saying there aren't times we don't bring in a reference project that was pretty significant somewhere else, but it's mostly about what we've done in our market and the people we have in our market. So it cracks me up when people from out in BC — or what I say out west — they talk about, oh, he did that out east, did that out east, and they're talking

11:49about Toronto or Ottawa or something. It's like, out east? No, no, no, no, further east. Exactly. Yeah, no, that is comical. So I mean, we're here today to discuss preconstruction in the sense of early contractor involvement, which is — it's kind of, I guess you would call it a philosophy — ECI. And you know, just new collaborative models, moving from, you know, low collaboration with lump

12:21sum, and then onward to design-build, construction management, progressive design-build, and then IPD — you know, kind of that trajectory toward the dispersion of risk and more collaboration, just different delivery models. So you know, there's so much to talk about. We've been discussing off-air lots of different things, but you know, maybe a good place to start would be Rick, for you to share an IPD project local here in — with Halifax Water. I can't

12:56talk about that, sorry. I love just teasing. No, we're very excited about it — it's great. It's always nice to get a new procurement and delivery model into the market. You know, we're very much believers — as I know everyone at the table here — in collaborative contracting. And in the world we're in today, with the challenges we have with trade availability, with budgets, logistics — I mean, any form of collaborative model is, in my opinion, a good thing. And IPD is

13:33certainly one of those. And it's a model that our company nationally has done a fair bit of. Certainly in Atlantic, it's a new model. And I think, as the comment I was making earlier, it's not for everybody. It's certainly — I think you have to look at the scale of the project to a certain degree, you have to look at the client. And that's true of most models. I mean, you need to align the client, the delivery model, the team,

14:00and the scope of the project. You know, it kind of came in large part out of larger complex projects — like, you know, doing hospital work and very risky work where cost certainty was really a challenge, and clients wanted to find a mechanism to kind of get there and to share that risk and reward as a group. So it has had success in that form, and as I said, we're partway through that project and I think it's

14:31been a learning experience for everyone, and I think everyone's got their eyes on it to see how it comes. But you know, I always say to clients, there's no silver bullet here in this industry. And IPD is one form, and it's a more complicated delivery model than, say, a progressive design-build. But for the right client, it's a good model. But what we're seeing in the market — I don't

14:59want to talk over everybody — I mean, but I'm very excited that, you know, progressive — or modified — has come to the fore in Atlantic Canada, and we're now seeing a lot of clients gravitating to that. And it's taken a number of years to get there, and a lot of education and support and getting, you know, clients — and I know you guys have been championing it too — that that's a really excellent form. And we're now, you know, HRM just came out

15:30with one, the province is coming out with multiple ones, and some of our university clients are doing it too. So the Halifax Forum — that's not IPD, but it is a progressive design-build. Yeah, yeah, that one — it just closed on Tuesday, just for qualifications, RFQ. Yeah, okay. That's a perfect model, especially in a messy renovation or whatever form. Not classified as a Heritage Property, is it? I believe it still is a Heritage Property. Yeah, yeah. That's one of the challenges.

16:03Exactly. So yeah, that's an exciting project. But what a perfect model to use that form of delivery, where you can get everybody around the table, try and de-risk it, and find a solution that works to the budget of the client. So yeah. Talk about how that works. I mean, you mentioned de-risk — that is the essence of transferring the risk, or a portion of the risk, from the owner, which in this case is government. And I think, you know, I think

16:31there's an example in Moncton — is it the science centre in New Brunswick? Yeah. So that would be — that's a collaborative — is that construction management? That was construction management. Yeah. So you're seeing that right? Government shifting more to construction management as opposed to, you know, other models on these large complex — that's a large, large complex job. And yeah, I can speak to that one. Like, that's the Atlantic Science Enterprise Centre in Moncton. It's a project Pomerleau is building under construction management. One of the shifts I saw in the

17:01marketplace with the federal government was changing from lump sum to construction management. But also with their construction management procurements, they were timing the RFPs for the architects and engineers at the same time. So well — the RFP actually came up for the construction manager for ASEC, there was also a side RFP for the consultant team. And both contracts went through the procurement process, and both contracts were awarded at the same time, so that the architects and engineers and construction manager can start — or early contractor involvement —

17:34start at the same time. Right? So is that — and then they have higher influence at that entry point than if it was further upstream. So more problems are solved, less unexpected costs arise — those things. Am I correct to assume? Exactly, exactly. What we're going through right now — we've gone through a certain part of it. Like, we're costing as the design progresses, so the client is aware of the project values as they're coming along. So at around 33% design, we come in, do a

18:06quick constructability review and an estimate — 66%, 99%, 100% — so that everyone knows the cost as they go along. And at certain points you're doing checks too, like let's say at one point we are over budget. Further out, working with the team to figure out, okay, what can we do to bring it back on budget and keep the project going? Or if the government wants to go back and get more money to keep the project going. So at least that way you're working in a collaborative environment and at least having a good

18:33sense of cost as you progress. The timing on that — like, I like that Pomerleau project. But the concept of bringing everyone to the table at the same time — no one's missing the boat, no one's playing catch-up, no one has to ask what's going on. Everyone's at the table, everyone's collaborating. Like, you hear of the odd project where they do get together at the same time — that's the best. I like that. Yeah. And it's, in some ways, in our market that's not always the case, right? Sometimes I always say

19:01an expression I've heard some architects say — we're, you know, where fun goes to die. You know, that they don't want to set the table too early because it's like, well, we want to — we have a vision, we want to — not intruding on their creativity. Exactly. Yeah, well, bringing in at the end of design development or something. And you know, that's where we see projects unfortunately going offside, cost-wise and schedule-wise, where we're brought in but already, you know, a project design has been

19:27approved, it's gone to the board, it's already been budgeted, and so we're getting to the table maybe a little late. So it is wonderful, yeah. So it's wonderful in that scenario where they, you know, brought on at the first initial stage. That goes back to your early point about different models being perfect for different owners, and like I said, certain models just aren't going to work. So yeah, they hit it on the head. Yeah. So when you say you're

19:52more involved in the early early stages — and you know, the later stages — so just in lay terms, because we're talking about complex projects and obviously you gentlemen with your experience and everything — but just in general terms, you know, if it's not early contractor involvement at those high-influence points where collaboration can start early, when does it usually start? When's it starting, you know, on your lump sum or your basic, you know, design-bid-build? Lump — I was going to say lump sum.

20:26You really don't have that opportunity. You don't — there's no collaboration there. I want to break it down for listeners who are, you know, just to give context before you get so deep into it. Yeah, so in the lump-sum world, the architects and consultants and the owner — they've already had their concept, they come up with it, you get a full set of drawings and specs, you give them a lump-sum price, and you try to go build it for that. You miss the opportunity for

20:48value engineering, constructability reviews, schedule reviews — that kind of stuff. That Vivek kind of talked about — ASEC — if you're at the table right from the beginning, the contractors bring all that to the table from day one. Here's what we think the schedule is, here's what we think the budget is, value-engineering concepts. And some of that design needs — what I think — I think the design needs the constructability to go hand in hand, and a constructor at the table also to help out with, kind of, market trends or

21:16what's coming, or labour availability, procurement — that sort of stuff. It's part of the process — you need that. Like, don't design with mineral wool for the next — there you go, whatever it might be — or trends, who's busy, who's slow, what product is spiking in cost right now? Yeah, that all plays a major factor. Timing on it, so in the lump-sum world you miss all that. And then my thing too — when we're always talking costing here — is in the lump-sum world it always seems like they're

21:45looking for cost certainty. Lump-sum world — that's your cost minimum, it just goes up from there. And it takes away — like Rick and I were talking earlier — it takes away that collaboration part of it, where the general contractor coming in with a lump-sum bid is now trying to make as much money as they can on that. So any change, anything that's not clear, it starts a conversation — or maybe starts a discussion, disagreement, arguments, fights — and they try to make more money on that. So it's in my

22:14mind just not a very collaborative approach, compared to what Vivek is talking about with CM or IPD or any of the collaborative-type project procurements. And the other thing about lump sum, especially in the market we're in today — we've seen countless projects going over budget. So you can imagine the scenario: you do traditional lump sum, you know, the design team is involved, it can take a year and a half, two years even, just to get the project fully designed, they put it out, and

22:43yeah, they're hopefully working to a budget. But it goes on the street and if it comes in 30% over budget, then what do you do? The mechanism to get it back on budget is a challenging mechanism, because you either have to go back to the designers and say we got to start over again, or you know, value engineering at that point — you're not getting the efficiencies out of it, you can't get the cost savings out of it. So you know, the market today is really

23:08driving, I think pushing the clients towards collaboration, because there becomes more uncertainty — more uncertainty in cost — and the escalation has been off the charts as the market price. So it is. And I would say, like, we as contractors are not the bad guy in this scenario. Spread the word — we are simply a conduit. We are getting prices from the subcontractors and the subcontractors will give us the price that they feel is appropriate. And if they've got 10 jobs to bid, then

23:41that's going to reflect the price that you're getting. I think the market's getting smarter and is moving away from the lump sum, where people are realizing over the years that the lowest price isn't the best price anymore. Like, the qualifications of the general — lowest price — now isn't the best, right? Far as going back through the years, it was always lowest price, lowest price, let's go with that. And I think people have been

24:06maybe burned enough or learned enough that it's like, there's got to be a better approach. Yeah, yeah. I think I made the comment to Rick earlier — was trying, just for me in layman's terms — you know, obviously this is your realm. And I was thinking in terms of just business in general. You're providing a product or service — you could be selling furniture to someone. Here you're selling, you know, they're selling a building and you're handing off this — it happens

24:32to be a complex major project that you're providing someone. And there's so many different factors on the macro scale — whether it's inflation, or cost increases, materials, procurement, availability, lead times — all those things. But then you have, you know, the micro view of just all your consultants involved and the delivery model processes, and then how it impacts others. Like too, when you're talking IPD — you're moving from lump-sum bid on one end and IPD kind of on the other end of the spectrum. What's that mean for the

25:05subcontractors? Like, do you have to educate subcontractors more? I mean, this IPD job, Rick — yeah, in Burnside, the operations facility for Halifax Water — like, the subcontractors, they have questions about what it means. Because you know, for me it kind of seems like you're not eliminating the hierarchy per se, but like it's more they're taking a share of the risk and the reward. Yeah, what's it mean for them? Well, I think it's like anything. I think I said earlier it's

25:36a matter of having the right team. So you want subcontractors that are wired to be creative, that are wired to be at the table and bring solutions to a design challenge. And so it's no different from CM — as Vivek was saying — you know, that early contractor involvement. It's just the difference here is we've got the sub trade as part of that team at your hip right from the outset. So they're partnering with players that are wired to do that, and that we have

26:07confidence in. And so yeah, it's all about sharing the risk, it's all about the right team members. And that applies to the design team too — you want collaborative designers that are going to be open-minded to strategies that maybe they wouldn't have been thinking about at the outset, but they realize that we're all in it together and we've got to solve it together. So I think — and I think a comment I made earlier about it too is — you need a client. I've always heard

26:37about IPDs — whether we've done them or not — you need a really educated, informed, engaged client that can be at every meeting, that can make good decisions, quick decisions, informed decisions, and doesn't have to say, I've got to go back and talk to 20 people about that decision. You want to be able to — for the process to work — you need to make good, timely decisions to keep the process going. So like, I think too — there's a key difference. Like you

27:09compare construction management to IPD — construction management is two contracts. There's a contract between the general contractor and the owner, and there's a contract — it's two separate contracts — and a contract of the consultant with the owner. And then the construction manager has the contracts of the trades. The big shift and the big mind-shift, I guess thinking shift, on IPD — it's a multi-party agreement. So that main agreement is being signed by the architect, the owner, and the contractor. And as Rick mentioned too, in

27:39this model you can actually bring in sub trades onto that model as well. So you're all on the same — you're all signing the same contracts, you're all with the same terms and conditions and the same objective. Whereas on others there's a separate contract for consulting that's its own scope of work, and say a general contract. So IPD really does bring everyone together to work towards a common goal under a common contract — a big difference — and sharing the risk or sharing the reward. Yeah, yeah. And so some subcontractors, depending

28:09when you say you want to bring on creative subcontractors — not every subcontractor is going to be creative, not every one. So it's not going to fit for certain ones. It's just the same way that a certain scenario or building type under commercial, institutional, or industrial — they're going to be more suited toward, you know, design-build or CM or whatever, right? You see, the model's got to — whatever the model is — it's got to really depend on what players it brings

28:37to the table, or who's the best fit in more regards than just the owner-to-construction relationship. Right, yeah. Yeah, like I think, on the IPD side, you're really looking for collaborative people to work with. So you want to have a trusted partner that you can work with in that environment. Because as Rick said, you've got to be quick. You can probably explain it more, but my understanding of IPD was — there's really no change orders, there's no

29:05contract changes — they're called changes. You mentioned earlier: quick decisions. So you're in what they call a big room, and you're trying to make quick decisions by consensus — everyone who signed the contract has to agree to the changes, agree to the way forward. And you know, with Halifax Water, people who've been following it know that aspects of that scope changed from maybe the initial outset. And certainly the target price that we started with at the time, you know, when it was budgeted initially, certainly

29:35changed during that time period — you know, when it was originally conceptualized to when we signed the contract. So yeah, there's always latitude with that model. But the whole — the whole idea — and to be honest, it's similar with progressive — the idea is that if you went progressive, you've got a price that you're trying to work towards. So with the Forum, you know, we haven't seen the final next stage of documentation, but let's say they have a dollar figure in mind, and the goal is that as a team

30:05you're meant to design a project and solve a problem for that amount, and do it together. The difference with progressive is you don't have the carrot-and-stick mechanism that IPD has in terms of sharing the risk and the profit. But you know, I always say, if you do a good job you'll get more work, if you don't, you won't. So I think progressive is a simpler mechanism to ideally get to the same result — you're trying to design

30:35efficiently and help a client get a problem solved for the dollars that they have available. It's as simple as that. And so I think hopefully the projects that come from that in the coming years are going to be successful, because I think everyone will benefit. So what — yeah, and then again, when it comes to IPD, you know, explain maybe a little bit of how that risk and reward is shared between the designer and the construction manager and then the sub trades.

31:07The risk and reward as far as — you know, this — am I understanding correctly, there's no contingency fund beyond the arrived-at budget that everybody's working towards? Or, like, you mentioned, there's no change orders, there's no — so I guess if you come in under budget and there's more profit left, it's a shared profit among everybody that's involved — the subs, the CM? Yeah, I believe it's — the wording is a risk pool. So it's a profit pool on top of the hard costs, and the

31:42idea is that that's what everyone's trying to save as you execute the project towards the target value. So right, if you start getting cost creep beyond — the first thing to go is your contingency, which is actually your risk pool. So then it starts eating into that as costs go up — you start slowly whittling down that profit that'll be at the end of the job that you have to divvy up. So as long as the party set out of settling down for it — yeah, so that's sort of the

32:07incentive of IPD — so everyone's going to win or everyone's going to lose. Exactly, right? So it's not going to be several parties involved where there are a couple of large-volume sub trades that have lost big, but the project went really well for the CM or the consultant. Right, and so it's a shared risk, shared reward. Yeah, yeah. Exactly. That's an interesting — you know, that's a very interesting shift for a lot of contractors, you know, who've been through some major major

32:39jobs and disruptions, and to see it that way — you know, it seems desirable. Yeah, what — I don't know. As I keep saying, I think it's a model that works for certain projects. And I comment — it's hard to explain the sense of, you know, why this project and not the other. Well, I think as I was saying earlier, I mean, I think there's a reason that a hospital or a complex project like that — it's just a

33:08perfect model for that — a very complicated project, very hard to reach a budget within a percentage of, you know, landing at a cost that's going to be the end result because of the complexity. Yeah. But I mean, it's certainly far better to do it that way when you've got a target price than, you know, say a lump-sum job where there's so much uncertainty in terms of the design, the market — you know, how is it going

33:41to be — you know, how much volume of work is in the market at the time it's priced and bid? So I think some of these models allow you to hit your mark more easily than other models, for sure. And you know, I say it all the time though — I mean, there's no perfect answer. Construction management — even construction management going on in the province right now — there's been some challenges with it. If you look at some of the long-term cares or some of

34:06the other models that have been going on — you still have to have design control and rigour around that. Otherwise, you know, you can be under construction management, but if the design itself just evolves and grows and gets more flamboyant or overly complicated, the cost will reflect that. So you know, once again, our job under construction management is to take that design, hopefully be at the table early enough to influence it, but then

34:41we're just at the mercy of the trades at that point. So yeah, some of these other models will allow the builder and the sub trades to be involved more heavily in that whole process, and I think that's — yeah. So is it kind of like, you know, value engineering on steroids kind of thing? Is that — like, does that make any sense at all? Because then subs are more involved and they're — it really brings the key — not all the subs in

35:09there but the key subs — in there, which definitely helps on the cost. And if they have skin in the game, they're definitely seeing it — it cracks me up on some of the projects where general contractors will struggle to break even or try not to lose money on a project, and some of the larger subs on the project are making money — or making much more money than the general does in the whole project. So in this case here, if they've got skin in the game, there's

35:33that opportunity — it's like, okay, we're either both going to lose or both going to win, is how I understand it. Which I like the concept. Yeah. But I think it's — part of it's got to be the team, it's got to be the right people. Like, any of the models that you talk about, it's the collaboration of the team that's involved, from the owner to the consultants, the architects, constructors, builder, subs. If the team's not there, if they're not thinking collaboratively, that sets the project up for success or

35:57failure. Yeah, yeah. And it's also — I guess also — the models we're talking about, but it's also: do the models match? Rick said models match the what — what the client is looking for. So like, sometimes clients are more interested in schedule, so certain models — let's say construction management is probably better for schedule because you can plan it out early on. If they're cost-sensitive, sometimes lump sum is good for cost-sensitive — like if you need to know how much it's going to cost

36:27within a certain amount, yeah, get it designed, lump sum will be the one to give you cost certainty. So all these models are around basically trying to meld together, I guess, the schedule and cost certainty issues, so that the outcome is successful. And there's so many ways you can mix and match that together. And that's why you're kind of seeing this shift now — the construction management shift, the progressive design-build shift, the IPD shift. These are all shifts to try to figure out better ways

36:56to work together for clients who have schedule and cost — where they value schedule certainty over cost certainty, if they have the time to invest in it up front, they can get that on the back end. Yeah, we just — Pomerleau and EllisDon just been on a project recently, on a big — call it a complicated renovation-type project. And in our mind, I'm assuming Pomerleau's mind as well, it would have been perfect for any of these other models — construction management, something collaborative.

37:26Like, it'd be a very tricky job for the consultants and designers to put it together for lump-sum bid. And day after day looking at it, it's like every — it checked every box of, like, it should be collaborative of some sort, or at least construction management. And it just didn't go that way. The owner has that decision, it's their call, that's fine. But it's those things that if someone maybe would have explained to them when this first started — it's like, you know, this is an ideal project for a

37:50different procurement model. And it just didn't go that way. I'm not sure Pomerleau thought the same thing, but it'd be — like, to your point, different projects, different owners, different models — like I say, it's not one size fits all. Yeah, yeah. And the nice thing with some of these mechanisms — it's not all or nothing. Like, even with construction management, we have clients we're in a construction management contract with, and at some point you know, they'll say, you know, Bird, I want to go to

38:19bed tonight and know exactly what the number is. And we'll say, fine, we can fix that number for you. We're happy to — all it means is we're — you're in the — but we're going to take on the risk to fix the number, and we can do that at any stage in the process. So no matter what the model, there are mechanisms to fix a price for a client. So it's really just — once again we say this all the time — it's

38:45all about sharing, you know, the risk — who's taking on the risk. And there's lots of ways to figure that out in a collaborative way, and any of these models allow that to happen. Maybe talk a little bit about, you know, the relationship from the owner — as you mentioned, in some of these lump-sum and design-bid scenarios where you have a contract with the consultant, architect, and the designers, and then a separate contract

39:15with the GC or CM. You know, when you get into IPD or collaborative progressive design-build, and you have an interesting background, Rick, from Fowler Bauld & Mitchell and then being with Bird — you know, what are some of the pros and cons of working closely with the creative side, the design side, and then the other side of things with construction in those early stages? Like, again, it depends on the project, depends on the firm, depends on their

39:47mentality. But just speak on that a little bit. Yeah, absolutely. There's some — I would say over the years there's some firms that are better suited to maybe more collaborative models, that are really interested in hearing innovative solutions or design strategies or material systems and new technology whatever. But other firms are very much, you know, want to be head-down, focused on what their design is, and don't really — you know, what they just

40:23want to get it designed and built the way that suits their vision. And so I would say in large part over the years, you know, we find in the Halifax Atlantic market everybody's generally very open to collaboration. Because let's face it, as a designer, ideally you don't want to design something and have it go to the street and have it be, you know, significantly over budget. You've got an upset client, you've got to do a rework,

40:54and no matter what anybody says, going back and redesigning something's not much fun. You've already moved on, you've got more work on your plate — you just want to see the project executed. So at the same time, you don't want to design something and have it picked apart at the other end, to a certain degree. Absolutely. And you know, that's part of the balance. And I guess our job in this industry is to help, you know, support the vision that they have, and find ways to, you know,

41:22I always say — I used to say this at the office all the time — when you're doing kind of value engineering, we'd sit in the office and we'd spend 95% of the time talking about architecture and 5% talking about structure, mechanical, electrical. And I'm like, come on, you know, why is architecture taking the hit? So I think our job — and I say this a lot — is to find, when the M&E side is almost 50% or more of the budget, you have to be creative and dig into

41:52those design aspects. There's really a tendency in this industry to focus on the architectural side, and I think increasingly we have to be rigorous in terms of how the M&E systems and the structures are designed, so that you can save the vision of the project. Because not many people — and I know there's a lot of mechanical engineers if they're listening to me, they probably want to shoot me — but you know, there's not a lot of people that go into a building and say, my

42:19God, that's a spectacular mechanical system. I mean, it happens, but for most people they're looking at the architecture. So I think increasingly our jobs involve becoming sophisticated in understanding and finding solutions on the M&E and structural side, to help keep projects on track. Can I tell you a story? Sorry. Yeah, yeah. This — back to the St. Mary's job. It was a big mechanical fit-up renovation over the summer months for one of their older buildings — very expensive as

42:54mechanical electrical, yeah. And we're spending all this money just to improve the air quality and the lighting in these buildings. And so the design was done, budget was set and all this, and the university is like, I'm spending all this money, the students are going to know we did it and they're not going to see anything for it. So we have to give them something. So said, okay, well, we'll put in some ceiling tile, chain some floor and paint. And so it was peanuts in the money. And did the project

43:17and when we came out at the end of the summer it's like, this looks amazing! It's like, that was like 5% of your — 90% of your budget. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. I was just going to mention — like, Rick mentioned about innovation. Again, depending on which model, when can you jump in and do innovation? Like, lump-sum job, innovation's long gone — design's complete, we're coming in with the price, and there's no opportunity to change anything anymore. So no innovation. Lost. Sometimes on construction management too,

43:50you might be coming in when design's all done — opportunities for innovation gone. But in these other models, especially kind of like the progressive design-build versus traditional design-build — because in traditional design-build, in the competition phase we're all working, investing money to do a design, hopefully we're getting compensated by a stipend — quite often not, sometimes yeah. And then once — and you're only designing about 30, 33%, and you're guessing at the rest to put a price on. And then once you're in, you're

44:21working towards that budget with your design team if you're selected. And by then you're just innovating to stay within budget. On progressive, it's kind of like you get to design first, get it complete — sometimes with the contractor — and then you build. So during that phase, there's a lot of time to come in with innovation and ideas. And buildings are getting more and more complex every day. The costs — the designs are working towards that, but the costs in the marketplace aren't quite catching up with it. So I

44:54see a lot of cost increases. Clients — sorry — clients are getting surprised by some of these cost increases because there's just more technology in the buildings, and it just costs more without really realizing the impact of putting all that in. So innovation is a big part of what Pomerleau does, trying to find ways to do things quicker and better and in innovative ways — like energy efficiency or even cost savings. I think in those other models where you're collaborating, you can get that. Yeah, and I think that's it. It's all

45:19about goal setting. The nice thing with a progressive model, collaborative model — you can right up front say, you know, what are the priorities here? You know, is it sustainability, is it embodied carbon, you know, is it a net-zero project? And you can set those goals and targets and then hold those sacred. And then you can find the savings in other ways. And I think one exciting thing — we're in the world we're in now — we're seeing innovations in mass timber construction, you know, carbon reductions, you know, how

45:50we look at concrete in a project from a carbon standpoint, prefabrication and modularization. You know, it's really — I mean, the world of construction is pretty innovative. And you know, I always say, if you're talking to young people thinking about a career, it's a great industry because of all that going on. I mean, you've got solar cladding systems, you've got offsite construction — yeah, there that's for sure. So I think it's a great thing. And if you look at

46:20what's going on around the world in terms of innovation, it's exciting. And I think we have — I mean, we all know the challenge we have from a housing standpoint these days. It's going to take creative ideas both from the design community and from the builders to solve these problems. And that's a great place to be. For some of these projects, moving with these different models away from lump sum into progressive and collaborative and IPD — you're going to have that

46:48collaboration factor — be more — have more opportunity to enter the project upstream or downstream, however you want to say it, but hopefully earlier than later. Yeah, yeah. But that's — we're so big — and I'm pretty sure all of us are the same on these models — we have to pick your team well in advance. Who are the designers, who are the consultants, who are some of your key trades you're going in with? It's so important to get the right team that you're going to be able to work with, and

47:16who's got the expertise on the certain projects that will hopefully make you — or the project — successful. Mind you, there's so much experience and talent around the city, around the Maritimes. But it starts well in advance before a project hits the street — of who we're going to team up with, who is the right consultant on this, or who is the right mechanical/electrical consultant — and get that team that you know you're going to be able to work with, that the owner is going to work with, and have that

47:42team approach to it. I yeah, definitely. Like, like we're all — we all have a pretty good understanding of the marketplace, I guess — what we call the pipeline of work. And just like Travis, we spend a lot of time planning for the work coming out and trying to make sure it fits in our timeline. So it's I work on selecting partners who we know we can work with and hopefully our clients work with as well. Assess a project — time for that. And I don't think we've ever seen in

48:06Atlantic Canada the volume of work either in the pipe — like in the pipeline — it's incredible, both public and private. Yeah, it's off the charts. And so that's going to be challenging. And you know, I would say we're probably all in the same boat where we're all getting so selective in what we're bidding and what we can't bid on. Right? Just the quantity of staff that we're working with — the availability of staff in the market is not there. You guys are probably similar to us. Like, our

48:31backlog — every year is a record backlog. And so the bigger the backlog, the less you can look at and take on, which is a good problem for us to have. Right? But it's amazing how busy the market is. And I know in our decision making, we are looking at contract model as a factor for sure. Yeah, well, I think we're more interested in — or if we had to pick and choose lump sum versus a collaborative model, probably if you look at that —

48:58100%. It's funny — I had a — you have so much more to offer. Sorry — you'd have so much more to offer, yeah, in that regard, in that scenario. Exactly. Yeah, not that you don't have as much to offer on the next competitor. Well, I'm sure — world, but yeah. I think the bigger — I think the bigger generals have to — to that point — they bring so much more to the table. They've all got these different departments in the background that might help out with constructability or construction

49:23sciences or research development or logistics and schedule, that a smaller general that just goes on a lump-sum project doesn't have that support that you can bring to the table in the collaborative approach. They wouldn't — they don't have that. So in lump-sum world, we've got to cover those costs off somewhere, so we're probably not as competitive as a smaller general on a smaller job where we'll have a little heavier overhead than someone else on a project like that. But it's a lot of services that they

49:50like. Yeah, well, I was just going to say — it was funny, I had a university client say to me one day, he keeps telling the executive: we need them more than they need us. And that's the world that we're in right now, I mean, in terms of them — well, contractors, right? You know, it's not saying we don't want to bid everything that's out there, but we can't, and we don't have the resources there. The subs

50:17and so I think for a lot of clients today, you know, partnering with the right constructor is critical. And there's only — we can only service so many clients to do. And you know, I know you guys are just the same as us — you want every job to be a success. You're not going to take on everything because you know it's — you don't want to ruin your reputation in the marketplace. And it's hard to recover from a bad job. So yeah, it's

50:47interesting times. That goes back to the small market. Yeah, yeah. Such an interesting — to get three gentlemen like yourselves from three different companies — EllisDon, you know, Pomerleau and Bird — to see the market, how interesting it is right now. I mean, there's lots of opportunities in so many regards. But probably just in the last points that were made — you know, there's room for a few general contractors to pop up that are just set up for basic lump-sum bid, to take some of

51:15that work, while, you know, so many others — let's say more — sophisticated is the right word, but you know, more set up, more geared toward these other collaborative models — are going to be so busy with all the major public dollars being spent and private work. So you know, there's opportunity. There's enough work for everybody. There is, there is. Yeah, you want everybody to be successful. There's enough in the market for every designer to be busy, every builder to be busy. And we all

51:46know each other, we all like each other — we're happy that, you know, when we don't win it, we're happy when you guys get it. I mean, it's not like it's going offshore or something. I mean, the work is all going to be done in Atlantic Canada, and there's more than enough to go around. So yeah. Can you elaborate a little more on the research centre in Moncton with Pomerleau and Diamond Schmitt? Or, like, can you talk a little bit about that

52:12project? You've been heavily involved. Vivek? Yeah, I was involved upfront — I'm not as terribly involved anymore, right. But you know, the project's going well, it's getting on track. We had our original scope was really an early works package, so we have done that — we've broken ground on some work, there's some excavation going on, some shoring going on, and it's going well so far. There's been work with Diamond Schmitt — we're working with them now to just do the estimates, do the

52:41constructability reviews, value engineering. We're getting pretty close to getting the main construction started, and once that happens, things will be moving quite quickly. One thing which is a good positive on that project — most federal construction projects now have an Indigenous benefits plan associated with it. So our early works is doing very well — we've done the vast majority, a good, significant chunk of that work, under — it's been executed by Indigenous companies. So a portion of all contracts have Indigenous companies

53:17involved in them. Yeah, I think most federal projects now have had on 5% — been in the jobs now, whether it's collaborative or lump, the driver — management — there's a minimum federal government mandate now for 5% Indigenous benefits on it. Any other thoughts, gentlemen? Anything we didn't touch on? One thing I wanted to say — and about our market, and regardless of the procurement — one thing I really love talking about is how projects are

53:49evaluated in Atlantic Canada. And I think Dalhousie University deserves a lot of credit for bringing the best-value system into our market. Because as a mechanism to evaluate submissions, it's influenced a lot of clients in Atlantic Canada. And I love the fact that now it's not just about the price on the evaluations — they've got all these other metrics by which they evaluate submissions. And I think — I know I could speak to this because when I talked to my colleagues across

54:20the country, they're like, what's going on in Atlantic Canada? Like, that's a cool way to evaluate. And you know, if you're going to invest time in being creative and bringing all the value-add that a builder can bring, you need a mechanism in how you evaluate the submissions to allow that to happen. And I think they deserve a lot of credit, because it was a huge investment on their part. And it's trickled down to a lot of different procurement models and institutions. It hasn't only benefited

54:50them on campus with all the projects they've done over the past several years, but it's benefiting everyone. Yeah, and I would, you know, speak about this with a lot of clients — that no matter what model of contract you put out, try and have a mechanism that rewards innovation, creativity, rewards a contractor that's investing time and de-risking a job. And I think that's happened here in large part because of that program. And not everybody uses the program to the full extent that

55:23it was developed, but at least we're seeing signs of it in so many different procurements. And I think that's to be celebrated, because I think for all of us — we don't want to be judged just on price alone. And not just, you know, on our staffing, because you know, staff come and go. It allows us to bring all the values of innovation that we can bring, and score accordingly. So yeah, that's a positive. I think I'm

55:54curious to expand on that and get your guys' thoughts. Yeah, I like that — when you can get your value to come through, to bring to it in any model, any proposal, whatever it might be. And then you flip to the median fee — yeah — where it is, okay, you bring all this to the table. And over the years, the fees back — when it used to be the days of construction where a fee might be worth 5% or 10%, these days where it's typically between 20% and 30% — I think I've seen one as high as 40%. So it

56:24kind of takes away your technical and your best-value — you're taking away, putting all that risk back on the fee. And even then it was like, okay, if you're low you probably get the job. But now, being at the median fee, it's still like, okay, we've got all this — we're bringing all this information, all these skills to the table, and then you're taking a guess at the median fee, which is so tricky. And like, as you said earlier, it's like, okay, you're the most

56:49qualified, but you're too cheap — you didn't hit it. Right. I'm not sure if you guys have the same frustration or thoughts on DCC. I definitely agree there — hitting the mark on DCC lately is a bit of a dartboard. But I don't know, not sure how to — or what to say about that. We've been — it's kind of a mix, because you look at it both ways. I think on those models the fees for the generals have been coming up, which is nice. Yes, but

57:18I've been burned both ways — being too high, too low — and been lucky enough to be successful and hit the median fee and win a project or two. But part of it — I'm just not sold yet if it's the absolute best model to go with. Okay, you're the most qualified but you're not getting the job. Yeah, I think ultimately — I know when I was in the consulting world, it was kind of funny that the clients — the province at the time — would say

57:41oh, fees is only like 5% or 10% and so it doesn't really factor — you could win it on your technical. Back then, but in those days most would come to mind — for most people between like 4% and 8% or something like that. Yeah, it was — but what was ironic is they'd score every technically almost identically, so it always came down to fee. So you know, once again, there's no perfect answer on all of this. But I do like the fact that you know,

58:07generally median is better for everybody, I think. And I think having some kind of value mechanism to reward innovation or effort is good, and it's not always perfect. But I think on par, we're in an industry now where those efforts are rewarded and clients are picking teams that are best suited to the project, as opposed to just picking somebody that's the low number. And I think that's a direction away from the lump. Yeah, for sure. Yeah, I like the median fee — it's kind of

58:40a good — again, a selection tool — but it mainly came first from the Province of Nova Scotia, and actually got lots of questions internationally or from national peers about what you guys are doing with the median fee and how that works. And I think it's good. I think the good thing about it is it brings up the fees, and also brings it up to where it's fair value. I think before, sometimes it might not be the best value to take that lowest price.

59:08But now you're kind of getting a fair-value price, which is really good. So I like that part. And I guess the scoring — whether it's 20%, 30%, 40% — yeah, not very attractive when it's like 40% fee. No. But within 10% and 20%, that's a really good range. Absolutely. Because often times our fees are inconsequential if you look at the cost of a project. The cost to bring on a CM or somebody — it's a few points on a very complicated building. I

59:37would say — and I know it sounds like — I don't know, salesman here — but you know, we'll save you far more than you'll ever spend on us. That's my sales pitch. Yes, there you go. We all — so yeah. And it's not, you know, it's truthful in the sense that one decision on a CM or anything where it's collaborative can save the client far more than they'll ever spend. Bringing us to the table — a good value-engineering exercise — yeah, hands down. Isn't that

60:06the truth of any salesman, though — is to know that the client or the potential lead needs what you — obviously if you believe in what you're selling — it's — but it's just to convince them that they do need it. And they come back to you a couple of years later: wish I would have listened to you, I wish I would have. Yeah, wow. Yeah, it's — once again, there's no one answer and there's no perfect solution. But I think all three companies here are real fans of

60:38collaboration. And I think hopefully we'll all have the opportunity to do more of it and support our clients through that. Yeah, like — sorry, just one thing I think we didn't quite get to — is the progressive design-build shift. Like, I kind of — the province has shifted over to their version of a collaborative progressive design-build, which they call collaborative design-build. They've seen recent procurements come up for schools, hospitals, and then some student residences as well. National Defence —

61:11or Defence Construction Canada — has their modified design-build. That's a good one as well. I like that one. We all obviously do, yeah. And then the city is moving to progressive design-build. And the difference on progressive design-build is you get to do most of the design first before you construct, which is a great way to do it, because you get to do that value engineering and innovation as we talked about. So just seeing three different levels of government kind of moving towards that —

61:42and that's a big shift. It's a recent shift, just within the last year. Defence was on it for a while, but seeing the province and the city shift to that too, I think it's a positive thing, which means they're looking for collaboration. Yeah, yeah. Defence has been a champion of modified — well, you could call it — there's so many different variations of the term. But I think they said one time, they said, we don't think it necessarily saves us money — it provides cost certainty — but more than

62:11anything, it avoids all the negative sides of the battles between the contractor and the client, or the designer, and everything. You know, you're committing to a number, you're delivering a project, and it's very collaborative and simple. And it avoids all that pain that none of us need in this business — where you get knocking heads. It really happens. Did you have anything you want to say on public-private partnerships — P3 — like

62:45just in contrast to, you know, what we've — I don't, in contrast — it's, for some reason, P3 across the country has worked well. I think going back here, going back 25 years, when some of the schools were done P3, I think maybe the province as a whole had a bad taste and a bad vision of what P3 is and what it could be. And then we've been on a long pause in Atlantic Canada for P3 projects. And as far as EllisDon, we just

63:16recently completed one, and I think it was a success for the province. We did it — EllisDon did it through through Co — and still delivered it on time and on budget. And that was a successful P3 project. So it can be done here and done well. I think some of the other ones — not quite sure what other models, how they're going to be laid out — have the same success or not. But it's one of those things — P3 in Atlantic Canada is just not talked about

63:44as much, it's not promoted as much — definitely not as much as these other collaborative-type models. But to our success, it's more those ones that could be in that same conversation with other models. If it's done correctly, and to your point, with the right client, the right project, and depending on the financing — for who has it, the size of the project — it can be a good model that could be used here as well. Did you have any thoughts on — you know, obviously the market, like we just talked about,

64:11is a really unique and interesting time. What do you think — challenges-wise — from your perspective, from your unique perspectives? Like, obviously labour shortage is talked about every time. What else comes to mind as far as, you know, everyone — like you said, there's enough work to go around — what are the biggest challenges, do you think? You know, we struggle right off the bat — to Vivek's earlier point — is

64:45you look at the pyramid model, and labour shortage is for everybody, at every level, every trade, every office — whatever the position is, there's labour shortages. But then when it gets into the RFPs and bidding on this work, it's the expertise that you have available within your office — who's the staff that you can put on it, that you can respond to and take a proposal with, or who can actually execute the project if you get the project? Because chasing it is one thing and getting it is another. It's like, okay,

65:12this is great, we won this project — now who's going to do it? That is like — who's going to go do this project? Yeah, so labour at every level is just an issue. Sort of. There, no. And like, you know, from the different layers there — every subcontractor, there's enough work to go around for them too. And so numbers are creeping up really high. I would — well, I would assume they're looking at the same as us. If it's union or non-union, I'm pretty sure

65:44each union hall is strapped, and none of the subcontractors can bid on more than they can choose. So they're being smart about it — maxed out — and they're planning out long, being strategic about what's coming in, hopefully in their backlog. And when they know they're busy, the prices are inflated and it shows. And I think — I know for me — I'm a big fan of sustainability and providing leadership. And you know, for — I know we're all behind it that way — you know, trying to meet some of

66:19the net-zero goals the province has and the whole country has. And trying to balance that against the inflation we're seeing in the market and affordability challenges — it's tough to make that work. I mean, I was — but I was encouraged. I was just overseas before Christmas, touring a bunch of manufacturing facilities there. And to see some of the innovation, mass production of building components — you know, it was incredible. They were cranking out building systems, you know,

66:51with buildings the size of a couple of football fields and a handful of people. And it was just awe-inspiring. And I think there's a lot of innovation there that'll be coming our way. As a country, we're going to need to embrace that to deal with the skills gap that we have, to try and get costs down, and find ways to build things better, cheaper, faster, and more sustainably. And I think I was

67:21inspired to see what other folks are doing in their own space. So I think, you know, we've got a long way to go, but I think we've got a lot of smart people in the industry that can figure it out. Yeah, and as you mentioned before, you already see that so much with the offsite modular stuff and the innovation there — and mass timber and yeah. Anything else, guys, or do you want to wrap up? I know this has been great. It's been really interesting to have

67:46you gentlemen here, to give a unique perspective, and have three corporations represented at the table. And you know, I know our audience would be excited. We got through it, we didn't fight — we're doing good. Play yeah, I'll do anything for a bottle of water. No, it was great, it was fun to be together and share. All great. Thanks, thanks for having us. Awesome. Vivek and Travis, thanks a lot. Appreciate it. Thanks. Thank you. What happens