Construction Collaboration + Robust Proces = Predictability, Trust, Consensus, Increased Productivity
We provide solutions that enable commitment, trust, communications, shared objectives, an attitude of teamwork and an environment for effective problem solving for owners, architects, engineers, and builders.
Transform fractured preconstruction and construction activities by unifying processes and providing a dynamic view of the project costs, requirements, and phases, acting as a single source of truth.
Unite People, Process, Information, and Technology to ensure certainty of outcomes.
4BT works with our clients to provide robust, integrated, collaborative planning, procurement, and project delivery solutions for repair, renovation, maintenance, and new builds. We offer and support environments in which team-based process-supported accomplishments, and emergent learning about how to leverage collaboration are possible!
Our solutions enable all project stakeholders have actionable, current information when the need it, anywhere, anytime.
We challenge how repair, renovation, maintenance, and new build projects are managed throughout their lifecycle to ensure improvement at every
phase.
By collaborating, organizations share information, resources, activities, and capabilities to achieve shared purposes that cannot be achieved independently.
Prove, robust processes enable an environment where participants negotiate shared purposes and address issues of competing perspectives, distrust, and often lack of established governance structures and processes, as well as resource shortages.
Well-designed and well-managed collaborations can significantly improve productivity, reduce project timelines, lower overall costs, and improve both quality and participant relationships. In this regard, shared understanding, mutual trust, and committed leadership
among participants are all important in making collaboration successful. Compliance, procedural and substantive rationality, and accountability are all end results.
Unfortunately, studies have shown that collaboration is often initiated not because of proven effectiveness, but because of pressures from the environment, such as government mandates or policies, established norms, or best practices which are deemed effective by a significant number of organizations. To date, none of these “drivers” have occurred. As a result, less than 5% of organization have even attempted implementation and none successfully accomplished full implementation.
Research also clearly demonstrates participants can make collaboration effective by building trust, affirming shared commitments, exercising leadership, and establishing rules, norms, workflows, common data environments, and appropriate governance arrangements.
Four BT, LLC – CAPABILITY STATEMENT
Established in 2016, Four BT, LLC. (“4BT”) is a certified veteran-owned small business focused upon providing objective, verifiable, and current local market construction cost data, associated secure cloud-based technology for construction cost estimating and full related support services.
Four BT, LLC 84 Cottonwood Lane Naples, FL
Phone 903.326.9965
Emailaddress info@4bt.us
DUNS number 080379826
EIN 81-2495737
CAGE 7RB80
Website https://www.4bt.us
Mark Powell
President and Cofounder
Four BT, LLC
CMMC Level 2 Certified
The Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC 2.0) is a program by the Department of Defense (DoD) that aims to enforce the requirements of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.204-21, NIST SP 800-171 and 172, and the Final CMMC Rule. The program has three distinct levels of certification, each with its own set of requirements.
Level 2 Advanced requires organizations to establish policies around each of the CMMC domains and document that their practices implement these policies. CMMC Level 2 introduces 93 new practices aligned with NIST SP 800-171 to the 17 controls in CMMC Level 1. Organizations must undergo triennial third-party assessments for critical national security when working with sensitive, controlled information and an annual self-assessment when dealing with Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI). Plan of Action & Milestones (POA&M) for scheduled upgrades are now permitted.
TECHNICAL INFORMATION
4BT offers a solution that provides higher cost visibility and greater cost manager capability than traditional national average cost databases and tools such as “RS Means Online” as all data is locally researched for the specific location(s) and not dependent on location factors.
Construction cost data is relatively simple.
It is made up of labor, equipment, materials, and associated productivity for the defined task. It is critical that data is gathered per the local market and that users can view, change, enhance, and share granular cost items with respect to the individual labor, equipment, material, and crews.
4BT creates local market granular cost data for relavant locations as per our methodology, organized by expanded CSI MasterFormat and is supported with cloud estimating software.
Our fully dedicated team of cost researchers and engineers, who have decades of specialty field experience, source the data for integration within our cloud software and work collaboratively with our technology professionals. Our team has worked for firms including The R.S. Means Company, LLC, VFA, Inc., and 4Clicks Solutions, LLC. Our cloud technology enables intuitive, fast, and easy access to construction cost datasets and estimates and management across multiple disparate yet collaborative teams and locations. Our SaaS (software as a service) technology is hosted by Microsoft Azure Government Cloud or Amazon AWS.
Our cost data development team leverages multiple resources including business manufacturers, commodity suppliers, and wholesale chain information and pricing, dynamic cost databases across disparate domains of materials and equipment, and local general contractor and subcontractor labor costs across multiple trades.
The continuous maintenance and updated research cost dataset is used as the basis for updating and/or creating granular construction task lines.
Unlike other traditional databases, these elementary cost elements are the foundation for, and link with, all granular tasks enabling over one (1) million updates for each localized dataset.
The founders established 4BT to provide a superior alternative to traditional “industry leading” cost data that relies upon “national average cost data” and location factoring. As demonstrated by third party studies, location factoring cannot accurately account for local market conditions, resulting in significant errors in cost estimation for all types of repairs, renovation, maintenance, and new construction activities. Examples of these studies/reports are as follows:
“Location factors are used during preliminary project evaluations. They are not intended to be used when preparing appropriation-quality estimates. They often are applied to conceptual estimates for identifying “go/no-go” projects at an early stage.” (Peitlock, B.A., ccc, Developing Location Factors Using a Factoring Method, International Cost Engineering Council, ICEC International Cost Management Journal (ICMJ), 1998.)
Location factors are primarily used in class 4 and 5 estimates and are not intended to be used for higher quality estimates, such as class 3, 2, or 1. The RSMeans city cost index (CCI) and the Department of Defense area cost factor (ACF) index are two primary examples of location factor publications. (Martinez, A., Validation of methods for adjusting construction cost estimates by project location , University of New Mexico UNM Digital Repository, 2010)
“Despite its potential weaknesses, estimation by adjustment factors is a very common approach for all types of construction. A very common approach for performing quick-order-of-magnitude estimates is based on using Location Cost Adjustment Factors (LCAFs). The accuracy of cost estimates in the early phases varies within an expected range that spans from -100% to +200% ” “Using the results of this study, various commercial entities (e.g., RS Means) could enhance their online tools by uploading publicly available socio-economic variables and allowing users to perform geostatistical analysis. As a result, a cost engineer could input the location of a project and obtain the most accurate location adjustment factor through a mix of interpolation and geostatistical prediction techniques.” (Migliaccio, G., Empirical Assessment of Spatial Prediction Methods for Location Cost Adjustment Factors, J Constr Eng Manag. 2013)
“Problems within the methodology, unfortunately, will continue to arise as standardized estimation tools (CCI) simply cannot account for the unique characteristics of individual states. Unfortunately, the accuracy of program wide CCIs occasionally led to swings of ±20 percent after projects had gone through the bidding process. Additionally, no direct application of market or economic conditions existed in this conventional CCI process, which was theorized by FHWA to potentially be a significant influence on resulting project estimate accuracy. ” (University of Colorado Denver College of Engineering and Applied Science Department of Civil Engineering, Validation of Project-level Construction Cost Index Estimation Methodology, 2017)
“In the United States, RSMeans and other published construction cost data are useful for estimating the overall cost of a project. However, these are typically nationally aggregated mean costs and intended to be used with a local multiplier. Prior studies have found that locally adjusted RSMeans costs vary from actual local material prices. For example, Estes (2016) found that for a slab-on-grade foundation assembly with 0.1 m (4 inches) thick slab, vapour barrier and welded wire fabric in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States, concrete was found to be underestimated by 18% and vapour barrier by as much as 67%. Additionally, assembly costs for 0.1 m (4 inches) thick concrete slab were found to differ significantly (p = 0.004, α = 0.05) when comparing locally sourced costs and adjusted RSMeans cost data (Estes, 2016). Published cost data also lack accuracy due to the type and manner of data collected and represented. For example, RSMeans data do not account for variations caused by local codes, productivity rates, climate conditions, labour quality and availability, or costs related to land prices and permit fees (Ontario Construction Secretariat, 2001).” (Kodavatiganti Y, Rahim MA, Friedland CJ, Mostafiz RB, Taghinezhad A and Heil S (2023), Material quantities and estimated construction costs for new elevated IRC 2015-compliant single-family home foundations. Front. Built Environ. 9:1111563. doi: 10.3389/fbuil.2023.1111563
Unlike traditional national average cost data providers, we do not cobble together statistical datasets base upon selects cities and building types or use hidden “black box” formulae, and/or rely upon “location factors” and/or “economic factors”. (Note: Gordian/RSMeans City Cost Index is a factor and compares materials, labor, and equipment and to a national average of 30 major U.S. cities. Material, labor and equipment prices and quantities are input into “ a composite cost model”, which is weighted to attempt to reflect construction costs.)
The use of local market cost data and associated robust processes can easily achieve 30%-40%+ in overall cost savings and/or improved cost visibility when combined with the use of included line item modifiers as well as adoption of associated robust processes.
Since inception 4BT’s unique and proven approach and tools have supported thousands of projects, serving hundreds of government professionals, designers, and builders, replacing outdated methods. Furthermore, 4BT products have replaced products/solutions provided by Gordian/RSMeans by providing higher levels of service and significant cost savings.
4BT researched LOCAL labor, material, and equipment costs and are organized by expanded CSI MasterFormat and updated quarterly or as otherwise mutually agreed upon. Accounts are set up for with usernames and passwords. Users are able to create, store, update, and download detailed line-item construction cost estimates using the 4BT local market construction cost database. Users can also create their own line items and any user created line items are so indicated within the software.
Four BT, LLC is CMMC LvL 2 compliant.
Each line item contains an appropriate unit of measure and detailed description of the construction task, in plain English, without the excessive use of acronyms or abbreviations, to make the cost estimating data intuitive and clear about what each task is intended to accomplish.
Individual line items are included for demolition and for quantity, means and methods, or other variables impacting cost.
Our construction cost data is designed to capture the most common units of construction tasks. That said, when requirements exist for items not included, there are two options available.
First, any user can create a new line item with an associated description, labor, material, and equipment costs and is designated as non prepriced within the 4BT estimating software .
Secondly, based upon client requirements, 4BT can research and add new prepriced line items based upon owner approval. This process ensures overall database integrity. It is important to note that 4BT is highly responsive to client requests.
Labor Costs
Unlike other cost data suppliers, 4BT’s research spans over 130 trades on a local market basis. Hourly wage rates, workman’s compensation, and other detailed aspects that vary widely based upon trade and location. As labor cost can account for 50% to 60% of a repair, renovation, maintenance, or new build activity, the importance of reliable cost data cannot be under emphasized. The application of a factor to a cost line item, or even to labor cost specifically, cannot account for local variations.
(Note: Gordian/RSMeans CCI only covers 66 materials, 21 trades and six pieces of equipment, plus fuel and maintenance costs. It is a factor that compares materials, labor, and equipment to a national average of 30 major U.S. cities. Material, labor and equipment prices and quantities are input into “ a composite cost model”, which is weighted to attempt to reflect construction costs.)
Material Costs
Sourcing is a critical aspect of determining reliable materials costs. Based upon the type of material, local, regional, or national suppliers are available. Costs must therefore be researched for the specific project location.
Reliable suppliers and prices can fluctuate significantly over time, so it is essential to use up-to-date pricing information to ensure the reliability of the estimate.
4BT first attempts to source all materials locally, then expands area based upon need.
Equipment Costs
Equipment costs pertain to expenses associated with using/renting and operation of construction equipment on the project site. Transportation of the equipment to the site is not included in the 4BT cost data.
By intensively researching local labor costs, material costs, and equipment costs, 4BT enables real property owners and their design builders to avoid the pitfall of outdated traditional cost estimating methods and significantly contribute to successful project planning and execution.
4BT applies a robust disciplined and thorough process to our cost data research. While the benefits of locally researched cost data are obvious, the process has been tested and proven thousands of real-world applications.
CLOUD TECHNOLOGY
4BT recommends the use of our 4BT Benchmark Construction Estimator™ cloud technology platform for estimating and our 4BT-PEP for JOC Program Management.
The 4BT Benchmark Construction Estimator™ is a powerful purpose-built cost estimating solution created by teams of construction professionals and cost estimators in collaboration with technology developers with broad subject matter expertise. 4BT Benchmark Construction Estimator is infinitely scalability to support performance for an unlimited number of users with an unlimited amount of storage as well as access by any enabled user from any device with internet connection including desktop computers, laptop computers, tablets, or smart phones with an internet browser.
While other vendors can claim decades of market use, none can claim superior performance, higher functionality, or greater ease-of-use.
Features and capabilities of the 4BT Benchmark Construction Estimator include the following:
· Activity Dashboard
· Support for Multiple Users
· Support for Multiple Cost Databases
· CSI MasterFormat Cost Data Architecture
· Ability to Create Estimates
· Ability to Create Estimate Templates
· Ability to Reuse and Modify Estimates
· Ability to Update Estimates with Another Cost Database
· Ability to Select Line Items and View the Estimate on the Same Page
· Audit trail capture
· Ability to Select Line Items and View the Estimate on the Same Page
· Ability to Approve an Estimate
· Estimate Export to MS Excel or PDF
· Ability to add User Defined Markups (Percentage or Dollar Value)
· Estimate and Line Item Search
· Estimate/Template Data Integrity
· Automatic Identification of User Created Line Items
· Full Audit Trail
The 4BT Benchmark Construction Estimator™ combined with 4BT current and actionable local market construction cost data enables robust cost estimate creation, updating, sharing, and downloading with the highest possible degrees of cost visibility.
OUR PURPOSE & VALUES
We work closely with clients to embrace a transformational approach aimed at benefiting all stakeholders—empowering organizations to reduce administrative burden, mitigate waste, improve quality, and shorten project delivery cycles.
We have developed a uniquely collaborative model fueled by the goal of helping our clients to improve decision-making with current, objective, and actionable information.
- Systems-thinking
- Integrity
- Value delivered
- Respect
- Transparency
#1 Poorly developed budgets continue to weaken credibility of PUBLIC SECTOR organizations and facilities management professionals.
#2 Cost overruns and project delays negatively impact mission-critical operations.
Building trust and rapport with stakeholders from diverse backgrounds and cultures is essential for successful repair, renovation, maintenance, or new build activities.
Real property owners, designers, engineers, builders, suppliers, and other stakeholders must establish a positive and respectful relationship that facilitates collaboration and communication.
4BT’s team and solutions help our clients to integrate internal and external teams within a supportive, transparent, and productive environment.
Leadership’s role is to create an environment where people are in control of the work and add value to the overall results.
We help organization do this each and every day.
Bridge the information that is locked within different teams and systems, demolish silos and foster better cross-functional work collaboration in the process.
Direct leadership involvement should center upon intervention only when needed by those doing the work, as well as providing ongoing support and methods of improving processes.
A successful organization exercises and grows tacit and explicit knowledge through the ongoing interactions. .
Exploring and exploiting this knowledge is the pathway to continuous improvement and all participants play a role.
Shared Value, Transparency, Integration, and Streamlined Collaboration
Align all project stakeholders around a common goal with the same systems thinking based programmatic framework.
#1 People, Culture, Organization
#2 Process, Workflows
#3 Information
#4 Technology
“The conceptual basis of construction management and engineering is obsolete.
Formalization of the scientific foundations of construction management and engineering is a
primary goal for the research community.” – Koskela, 1992
4BT supports your capability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competencies to address rapidly changing environments at all levels.
Real property owners can now uniquely and efficiently schedule and sustainment requirements for Government-owned physical assets and generate valid cost data depending on the geographic location of the building/facility.
4BT’s application of SYSTEMS THINKING has created an effective approach to team environments with multiple shareholders by ensuring everyone is on the same page, speaking the same language, and sharing files and information in common formats.
The value of integrated planning, procurement, and project delivery teams cannot be overstated.
We develop, support, and continuously improve locally researched detailed line-item construction cost data and LEAN, integrated construction planning, procurement, and project delivery solutions.
Track, monitor, and document all decisions — who, what, when, and why — ensuring project visibility and transparency while eliminating the possibility of errors and miscommunications.
Decision-makers and those doing the work have the current, actionable information needed to make timely and smarter choices.
Four BT, LLC (4BT) is a certified veteran-owned small business (VOSB), founded in 2016 by thought leading professions with decades of experience spanning the domains of Job Order Contracting and other IDIQ methods, Facilities Lifecycle Capital Planning and Management, Construction Cost Data engineering and publication, including organizations such as the RS Means Company, LLC, 4Clicks Solutions, LLC, and VFA, Inc.
4BT provides a complete range of Job Order Contracting and Integrated Project Delivery solutions, tools, and professional support services.
- Enterprise knowledge management technology
- Local market, current, granular construction cost data inclusive of line-item modifiers, organized using expanded CSI Masterformat.
- Preventive maintenance tasks, checklists, and costs for all associated frequencies organized using expanded UNIFORMAT.
- Construction technical specifications,
- Consulting
- Multi-format, multi-level industry leading training
- 24/7 Support services.
- Customization
4BT tools and services are specifically designed to provide a lower cost, higher performing Job Order Contracting Solution.
Instead of a sole focus upon faster procurement, we enable on time, on budget, quality outcomes by integrating planning, procurement, and project delivery team within a robust environment.
We offer a better alternative to a monopolized JOC market with excessive administration costs based on percentage fees of total JOC construction volume.
Multiple audits of JOC Programs clearly support the need for better performing JOC solutions (JOC Program audits can be found here or via internet search.)
4BT works collaboratively with real property owners and design-builders to:
- Benefit state agencies and other public entities statewide as well as their selected design-builders,
- Provide an integrated construction JOC planning, procurement, and project delivery method that allows numerous, common construction materials and services to be obtained through a pre-approved competitively bid contract,
- Efficiently use JOC for work related to repair and rehabilitation of various sites and facilities, and
- Integrate and continuously improve robust LEAN methods JOC processes and drive superior outcomes with the lowest JOC Program administrative costs.
“I would recommend 4BT in a heartbeat! The 4BT team is extremely knowledgeable in the field of JOC and always available when assistance is needed. The software is user-friendly and the technical assistance which is given is always appreciated. Once you are in the system and with the exceptional assistance the transitioning is smooth with an ending of comfort and satisfaction!”
– General Services Administration, Ventura County
4BT Best Value Job Order Contracting Solution
Four BT, LLC (4BT) is best qualified to implement and support a Job Order Contracting (JOC) Program from scratch, or to measurably improve it from initial implementation.
4BT was founded to address the inequities, lack of cost visibility and/or capabilities, and excessive administration costs associated with traditional JOC Program tools and services providers and fully meets and exceeds Job Order Contract (JOC) Support Services requirements.
4BT, a certified veteran-owned small business (VOSB), was founded in 2016, by JOC program management, technology, and cost data experts with decades of experience with traditional sector leading organization including the RS Means Company, LLC, 4Clicks Solutions, LLC, and VFA, Inc.
4BT provides a complete range of JOC tools and services, including but not limited to, enterprise JOC knowledge management technology, locally researched construction cost data inclusive of line-item modifiers, technical specifications, and full training, consulting, and support services.
4BT works collaboratively public sector organizations, and associated Contractors to:
1. Efficiently create and/or migrate JOC Programs to an easy to use, higher performing, and fully compliant solution (as we have done for the County of Ventura, Allied States Cooperative, City of Ventura…),
2. Support an organiztion’s ability to implement, deploy, and manage the JOC Program to the maximum mutual benefit of departmental users, and awarded JOC contractors (design-builders); and
3. Integrate robust LEAN processes and drive superior outcomes with the industry’s lowest JOC Program administrative costs.
While legacy Job Order Contracting solutions may require a percentage of JOC total construction volume paid for rendered software, locally researched cost data, technical specifications, and program support, the result has been excessive administrative costs. 4BT provides annual subscriptions paid when needed for tools and services and has found it to be more beneficial to, and more compatible with, the needs of most public sector owners. (It is important that percentage fee-based JOC Programs traditionally cost up to 10x the amount than a simple annual subscription and associated support services model.)
4BT has simplified the JOC process. Owners build and retain knowledge by being more directly involved in their JOC Programs without the need to hire on-site JOC consultants on a long-term basis.
Some alternative solutions may also use national average cost data with an attempt to localize information via location factors/indexes, a method provided to create errors.
4BT supports the full lifecycle an enterprise JOC Program, from initial development and implementation to on-going support including training, secure hosting, troubleshooting, continuous system monitoring, report development and generation, updates, and revisions to the JOC System whose core is the 4BTPEP JOC Knowledge Management System. JOC Program support services are available at any level required.
Infrastructure physical asset management is a young area of study and combines the domains of architecture, engineering, construction, and business practices. Total cost of ownership asset management is a comprehensive approach and requires the consistent application of robust LEAN planning, procurement, and project delivery methods.
“Traditional construction project delivery practices fail to provide a solid basis for improvement and are inadequate.”
We help public sector real property owners assure internal and external teams have the requisite skills, knowledge and experience and a robust, consistent process for every phase planning, procurement, project delivery, and beyond.
We are a team of professionals who…
1. Deliver the best possible tools and services to support Job Order Contracts and other LEAN construction delivery methods,
2. Promote a better understanding of how the built environment influences human behavior, health, and organizational productivity,
3. Build awareness of the strategic and operational value of LEAN, collaborative facilities management practices with respect to meeting emerging environmental and economic challenges,
4. Forge closer links and collaboration between the financial, technical, sociological, and operational aspects of facilities management through an integrated resource management and service delivery approach,
5. Disseminate information about proven business processes, tools, and research specific to best management practices (BMPs),
Our tools and services support relationship-based and knowledge-driven construction planning, procurement, and project delivery
“We help organizations achieve accelerated improvement of their facilities repair, renovation, and construction outcomes through the development of a culture focused upon customer value, supported by proven processes, actionable and robust data, enabling cloud technology, and ongoing training.”
Speed… Accuracy… Repeatability… Flexibility… Actionable Insight!
Our Team
We help building owners, contractors, and oversight groups to implement, monitor, and improve Job Order Contracts. Our team members have worked with hundreds real property owners and their architects, engineers, planners, and builders. We are experienced serving all public sectors encompassing the DoD, federal, state, and local governments, higher education, healthcare, and transportation as well as construction services cooperatives.
4BT is passionate about helping its customers improve all facets of their construction planning, procurement and project delivery programs.
Mark Powell – President
Mark’s experience includes over twenty years of supporting Job Order Contracts (JOC). He has extensive knowledge of the most widely used unit price books (UPB’s) and associated JOC estimating and project management software.
Mark Powell served in the United States Navy aboard the USS Enterprise and then started his construction career as a carpenter. By the mid 1980’s he became a California Licensed Contractor focusing upon Cost Engineering, Project Management, and Unit Price Book estimating.
Mark also was part of the design team providing progress design estimates to keep design costs in check for the MGM/Mirage Design Group in Las Vegas, NV.
Mark’s expertise also includes the use of a variety of computer software applications for estimating, scheduling, project management, accounting, and administration.
Memberships and Certifications
-
LEED Accredited Professional
-
United States Green Building Council (USGBC)
-
Alliance for Construction Excellence (ACE)
-
Center for Job Order Contractor Excellence (CJE) (Board Member Emeritus)
-
The Society of American Military Engineers (SAME)
-
The Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE)
- IFMA, NASFA, FFC – Author, Asset Lifecycle Management Total Cost of Ownership Principle Contributor
A skilled educator, Mark teaches JOC Estimating, JOC Coefficient Development, and JOC Project Management for the Alliance for Construction Excellence (ACE) & Arizona State University (ASU) Job Order Certificate Program along with various workshops. In addition, Mark provides JOC estimating and coefficient development training throughout the United States for various companies and government agencies.
Peter Cholakis – Senior Vice President and Chief Marketing Officer
Peter Cholakis is a seminal thinker on TCO (total cost of ownership) for the construction and facilities management sectors. He has worked with and supported the efforts of CJE, FFC, APPA, NASFA, NIBS, and IFMA.
Peter formerly led the marketing, sales, and product development efforts of 4Clicks Solutions, LLC, the leading provider of Job Order Contracting and IDIQ cost estimating and project management software.
Peter also served as Senior Consultant for RS Means Company, LLC, and in addition brought the concept of Capital Planning and Management Solutions – CPMS to market as a founding member of VFA, Inc.’s management team.
Peter has helped hundreds of large real property owners, contractors, and AEs to develop and deploy facility management and LEAN construction best management practices.
Peter has served as a Board Member for the Center for Job Order Contracting Excellence (CJE) and the National Institute of Science (NIBS) Facilities Management and Operations committee.
- Project Performance Institue (PPI)
-
Center for Job Order Contracting Excellence (CJE) – Former Board Member
-
National BIM Standard (NBIMS) 3.0 Planning Committee
-
Chairman of the National Institute of Sciences (NIBS) National BIM Standard (NBIMS) Terminology Committee
-
National Institute of Sciences – Facility Maintenance and Operations Committee (FMOC)
- ISO – U.S. mirror committee
Gene Spencer – Vice President Cost Engineering
Gene Spencer is an industry authority on construction cost estimating. Gene’s background includes over a decade of experience as an R.S. Means Company, LLC Senior Engineer, and several additional decades as a cost estimator, project manager, and facilities manager for Turner Construction, the United States Navy, and other large organizations. Gene is also recognized as a nationwide speaker and educator. Gene has led a series of nationwide mechanical, electrical, site & heavy construction and facilities estimating seminars for the R.S. Means Company, LLC. His additional duties included creating new data for specific clients, and evaluating costs incurred due to changes in scope of work.
4BT develops and maintains JOC unit price books containing costing data for individual construction tasks for a wide range of general construction, maintenance, repair, and construction of facilities, roads, parking lots, and other construction-related components typically encountered by real property owners.
We also provide professional training and support to owners and awarded JOC contractors for our web based JOC cost estimating, and project/document information management software system. Additional service offerings are also available.
4BT can support any Job Order Contract design and implementation with an open, transparent, and efficient solution. Our tools and services support project identification, detailed scope of work development, price proposal review, and construction management support.
Lean construction is a programmatic process-based approach that integrates disparate teams throughout the planning, procurement, and project delivery phases on an early and ongoing basis.
Tools and services are readily available to support the implementation and continuous improvement of lean construction.
With appropriate owner leadership and support, lean construction better meets customer needs
while using fewer resources.
Critical Success Factors
1. Top management leadership, commitment, & support
2.. Early and ongoing team involvement and commitment to promises and mutually beneficial problem solving
3. Common data environment, inclusive of locally researched line-item unit price cost data organized using standard data architecture (CSI-Masterformat)
4. Long-term relationships with locally experienced service providers
5. Motivating people to make change form project mentality to a program mentality
4BT provides a wide range of LEAN integrated project delivery and JOC services and support, including but not limited to:
- Introductory and Advanced Training (on-site, regional, virtual),
- Informal and Formal Contractor Proposal Compliance Reviews
- Technical, Professional, and Executive Consulting/Support Services
- Program Development
- Workflow Development/Optimization
- Form Development
- Program Auditing & Reporting
- Internal and External (Contractor) Marketing
- Change Management and Support
- Capital Planning and Management Strategy
- Asset Life-cycle Total Cost of Ownership Strateg
Recognize Symptoms — Study the Problem — Identify the Root Cause — Deploy Solution — Test and Confirm Results
4BT is helping governments and other public sector organizations to better meet their facilities and physical infrastructure objectives.
Well-governed public sector facilities directly contribute to greater public trust, enhanced well-being, and better communities.
- Deliver projects on time and on budget
- Lower administrative burden and costs
- Increase cost visibility and transparency
- Build stronger internal and external teams
4BT is helping governments and other public sector organizations to better meet their facilities and physical infrastructure objectives.
Well-governed public sector facilities and real property planning, procurement, and project delivery contribute directly to greater public trust, enhanced well-being, and better communities.
Key focus areas include:
#1. Identifying and categorizing all real property under management,
#2. Prioritizing actions needed to improve the operational and fiscal management of the real property inventory,
#3. Using verifiable, locally researched detailed line-item cost data and life-cycle cost estimations for those actions, and
#4. Identifying asset management goals and measuring progress towards those goals.
References
AbouAssi, K., Wang, R., & Huang, K. (2021). Snuggling together or exploring options? A multilevel analysis of
nonprofit partnership formation and evolution in an unstable institutional context. Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Quarterly, 50(1), 143–164.
Accenture. (2015). Strategic planning analysis report to Meda.
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571.
Argyris, C. (1999). On organizational learning (2nd ed.). Blackwell Publishers.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and practice. Addison-Wesley.
Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1963). Decisions and nondecisions: An analytical framework. American Political
Science Review, 57(3), 632–642.
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Seo, D. (2020). Using a design approach to create collaborative governance. Policy & Politics, 48(1), 167–189.
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2006). The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 44–55.
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2015). Designing and implementing cross-sector collaborations:
Needed and challenging. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 647–663.
Bryson, J. M., George, B., & Seo, D. (2022). Understanding goal formation in strategic public management: A
proposed theoretical framework. Public Management Review, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2022.
2103173
Cheng, Y. (2019). Exploring the role of nonprofits in public service provision: Moving from coproduction to
cogovernance. Public Administration Review, 79(2), 203–214.
SEO ET AL. 23
15427854, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nml.21571 by Arizona State University Acq & Analysis, Lib Continuations, Wiley Online Library on [25/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Coghlan, D. (2011). Action research: Exploring perspectives on a philosophy of practical knowing. The Academy
of Management Annals, 5(1), 53–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2011.571520
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design. SAGE.
Crosby, B. C., & Bryson, J. M. (2005). Leadership for the common good: Tackling public problems in a sharedpower world (Vol. 264). John Wiley & Sons.
Dahl, R. A. (2005). Who governs? Democracy and power in an American city. Yale University Press.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
Eden, C., & Huxham, C. (1996). Action research for management research. British Journal of Management, 7(1),
75–86.
Emerson, K., & Nabatchi, T. (2015). Evaluating the productivity of collaborative governance regimes: A performance matrix. Public Performance & Management Review, 38(4), 717–747.
Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal
of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1–29.
Fitzhugh, E., Julien, J., Noel, N., & Stewart, S. (2020). It’s time for a new approach to racial equity. McKinsey &
Company.
Gazley, B., & Guo, C. (2020). What do we know about nonprofit collaboration? A systematic review of the literature. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 31(2), 211–232.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure, and contradiction in social analysis (Vol.
241). University of California Press.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. University of California
Press.
Gray, B., & Purdy, J. (2018). Collaborating for our future: Multistakeholder partnerships for solving complex problems. Oxford University Press.
Head, B. W. (2008). Assessing network-based collaborations. Public Management Review, 10(6), 733–749. https://
doi.org/10.1080/14719030802423087
Herranz, J., Jr. (2010). Multilevel performance indicators for multisectoral networks and management. American
Review of Public Administration, 40(4), 445–460.
Hersberger-Langloh, S. E., Stühlinger, S., & von Schnurbein, G. (2021). Institutional isomorphism and nonprofit
managerialism: For better or worse? Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 31(3), 461–480.
Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2013). Managing to collaborate: The theory and practice of collaborative advantage.
Routledge.
Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2018). Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Jones, M. D., & McBeth, M. K. (2010). A narrative policy framework: Clear enough to be wrong? Policy Studies
Journal, 38(2), 329–353.
Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011). Collective impact. FSG.
Kihl, L. A., Tainsky, S., Babiak, K., & Bang, H. (2014). Evaluation of a cross-sector community initiative partnership: Delivering a local sport program. Evaluation and Program Planning, 44, 36–47.
Kim, M., & Peng, S. (2018). The dilemma for small human service nonprofits: Engaging in collaborations with
limited human resource capacity. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 29(1), 83–103.
Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. HarperCollins College Publishers.
Koppenjan, J. (2008). Creating a playing field for assessing the effectiveness of network collaboration by performance measures. Public Management Review, 10(6), 699–714. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030802423061
Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691–710.
Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Process studies of change in organization
and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 1–13.
Langley, A., & Tsoukas, H. (2010). Introducing perspectives on process organization studies. In Process, sensemaking, and organizing (pp. 1–27). Oxford University Press.
Lober, D. J. (1997). Explaining the formation of business-environmentalist collaborations: Collaborative windows
and the Paper Task Force. Policy Sciences, 30(1), 1–24.
Lu, J. (2018). Organizational antecedents of nonprofit engagement in policy advocacy: A meta-analytical review.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(4 Suppl), 177S–203S.
24 SEO ET AL.
15427854, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nml.21571 by Arizona State University Acq & Analysis, Lib Continuations, Wiley Online Library on [25/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Lukes, S. (2004). Power: A radical view. Macmillan International Higher Education.
Mandell, M. P., & Keast, R. (2008). Evaluating the effectiveness of interorganizational relations through networks. Public Management Review, 10(6), 715–731. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030802423079
McNabb, D. E. (2017). Research methods in public administration and nonprofit management. Routledge.
Mosley, J. E., & Gibson, K. (2017). Strategic use of evidence in state-level policymaking: Matching evidence type
to legislative stage. Policy Sciences, 50, 697–719.
O’Leary, R., & Vij, N. (2012). Collaborative public management: Where have we been and where are we going?
The American Review of Public Administration, 42(5), 507–522.
Ospina, S. M., & Saz-Carranza, A. (2010). Paradox and collaboration in network management. Administration &
Society, 42(4), 404–440.
Page, S. B., Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., Seo, D., & Stone, M. M. (2021). Ambidexterity in cross-sector collaborations involving public organizations. Public Performance & Management Review, 44(6), 1161–1190.
Page, S. B., Stone, M. M., Bryson, J. M., & Crosby, B. C. (2015). Public value creation by cross-sector collaborations: A framework and challenges of assessment. Public Administration, 93(3), 715–732.
Patton, M. Q. (2010). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use.
Guilford Press.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. SAGE Publications.
Powell, J. A. (2012). Racing to justice: Transforming our conceptions of self and other to build an inclusive society.
Indiana University Press.
Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2007). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 229–252.
Quick, K. S. (2021). The narrative production of stakeholder engagement processes. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 41(3), 326–341.
Rigg, C., & O’Mahony, N. (2013). Frustrations in collaborative working: Insights from institutional theory. Public
Management Review, 15(1), 83–108.
Rogers, E., & Weber, E. P. (2010). Thinking harder about outcomes for collaborative governance arrangements.
American Review of Public Administration, 40(5), 546–567.
Scheidgen, K. (2021). Degrees of integration: How a fragmented entrepreneurial ecosystem promotes different
types of entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 33(1–2), 54–79.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (Vol. 2). John Wiley & Sons.
Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2015). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural and open systems perspectives.
Routledge.
Seo, D., & Bryson, J. M. (2022). Resource development and use in a nonprofit collaboration. Public Performance &
Management Review, 45(5), 1181–1213. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2022.2075021
Silvia, C. (2018). Evaluating collaboration: The solution to one problem often causes another. Public Administration Review, 78(3), 472–478.
Simo, G., & Bies, A. L. (2007). The role of nonprofits in disaster response: An expanded model of cross-sector
collaboration. Public Administration Review, 67(s1), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.
00821.x
Skelcher, C., & Sullivan, H. (2008). Theory-driven approaches to analysing collaborative performance. Public
Management Review, 10(6), 751–771. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030802423103
Sowa, J. E. (2009). The collaboration decision in nonprofit organizations: Views from the front line. Nonprofit
and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(6), 1003–1025.
Stones, R. (2005). Structuration theory. Macmillan International Higher Education.
Suarez, D. F., & Esparza, N. (2017). Institutional change and management of public–nonprofit
partnerships. American Review of Public Administration, 47(6), 648–660. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074
015619482
Szabla, D., & Jarrett, D. (2022). Advancing strong structuration theory in organizational change research. In
Academy of Management Annual Conference, 2022(1), 16351. Briarcliff Manor, NY.
Takahashi, L. M., & Smutny, G. (2002). Collaborative windows and organizational governance: Exploring the
formation and demise of social service partnerships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(2),
165–185.
SEO ET AL. 25
15427854, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nml.21571 by Arizona State University Acq & Analysis, Lib Continuations, Wiley Online Library on [25/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Thomson, A. M., & Perry, J. L. (2006). Collaboration processes: Inside the black box. Public Administration
Review, 66, 20–32.
Torfing, J., & Triantafillou, P. (2013). What’s in a name? Grasping new public governance as a politicaladministrative system. International Review of Public Administration, 18(2), 9–25.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (2005). Alternative approaches for studying organizational change. Organization Studies, 26(9), 1377–1404.
Vangen, S. (2017). Developing practice-oriented theory on collaboration: A paradox lens. Public Administration
Review, 77(2), 263–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12683
Vangen, S., & Huxham, C. (2012). The tangled web: Unraveling the principle of common goals in collaborations.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(4), 731–760.
Voets, J., Van Dooren, W., & De Rynck, F. (2008). A framework for assessing the performance of policy networks. Public Management Review, 10(6), 773–790. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030802423129
Ward, K. D., Mason, D. P., Park, G., & Fyall, R. (2022). Exploring nonprofit advocacy research methods and
design: A systematic review of the literature. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.
1177/08997640221131747
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research. SAGE.
Comments are closed.