It’s now easier that ever to Remove Construction Barriers to Efficient Planning, Procurement, and Project Delivery… that, in the past, have resulted in rampant waste and poor satisfaction for everyone involved.

Facilities repair, renovation, and new builds are NOT complex, unmanageable beasts.  On the contrary, if a programmatic approach is applied for all projects and work orders, any organization can assure quality, on-time, and on-budget outcomes.

Time to learn how?

Lean Construction – Overcoming decades of mistrust, lack of communication, and opposition between facilities owners, designers, engineers, and builders… possible?

Only two of the following construction delivery methods are LEAN. Do you know which they are?

Construction Project Delivery Overview & Comparison

Design-Bid-Build

Traditional design-bid-build (DBB) delivery process with design, bidding, and construction in separate, sequential steps. Construction contract is generally awarded to the lowest bidder and/or lowest qualified builder, who then utilizes the subcontractors included in his or her bid.

Advantages

• Process most familiar to public sector design and construction community.
• Owner controls the design, which is completed under direct owner-A/E contract prior to construction.
• Direct way to provide competitive pricing for entire construction contract.

Disadvantages

• Adversarial, change-order-oriented environment is common between owner, A/E, and contractor.
• Planning, procurement, and project delivery is inefficient and disparate.
• Time-consuming redesign and rebid, and over-budget, unsatisfactory outcomes are common.
• Project cannot be expedited with a collaborative fast-track process; drawings and specs must be 100% complete to bid (though latter rarely occurs).
• Construction contract may be awarded to low bidder, without consideration to qualifications.
• No contractor and limited A/E assistance with detailed estimating, plan checking, and constructability reviews during design phase.
• General lack of technical and cost visibility and transparency. Bid shopping can occur and actual overhead and profit amounts are unknown.
• Construction price is not fixed until after design and bid phases are completed, and original “lump sum” target cost is rarely met.

Design-Build

Design and build (DB) construction are provided under a single design-build contract initiated at the beginning of the project. A DB contract is awarded on the basis of price and/or qualifications.

Advantages

• Single point of responsibility for both design and construction of the project.
• A/E and contractor work together through all phases of the project.
• Guaranteed maximum price (GMP) is fixed early in design phase of the project.
• Construction contract is awarded on basis of design-build team qualifications and/or price.
• Project can be expedited with fast-track construction, which can also reduce costs.
• Generally less adversarial relationship between owner, A/E, and contractor.
• Change orders may be reduced versus DBB due to A/E-contractor collaboration and contractual relationship.
• Designer and builder have a greater motivation than DBB to ensure owner satisfaction when selections are based on qualifications and performance.

Disadvantages

• High initial set up costs make DB suitable only for major new construction
• Not a fully collaborative multiparty agreement. Owner can still be at odds with designers and builders.
• While high set up costs required larger projects, project types must be relatively straightforward, where requirements can be fully documented at request for proposals (RFP) stage.
• Major pre-planning effort is needed to prepare sufficient material for the request for quotations (RFQ)/RFP process.
• Owner has less control (vs. IPD or LEAN Job Order Contracting) of design process, with the A/E typically working for the contractor.
• Design changes can result in costly impacts to drawings or construction work in progress.
• Disagreements related to intended quality of work are not uncommon.
• Will generally not work any better than DBB if mutual trust relationships are not built.
• May not be allowed some states.

Construction Manager at Risk

Construction manager at risk ( CM@R) includes a construction manager who works with the owner and A/E through design and proposals and manages subcontracts to complete the work. The CM@R is required to complete the project within the agreed-upon amount, or else is at risk to cover the additional costs.

Advantages

• Project can be expedited with fast-track construction.
• Construction contract is awarded on basis of CM@R qualifications and past performance.
• Construction work is competitively priced through low bids of prequalified subcontractors.
• Change orders are may be reduced due to A/E and contractor coordination through the design phase.
• Owner controls the design, which is completed under direct owner-A/E contract.
• Suitable for complex building types.

Disadvantages

• Not fully collaborative.
• Contingency costs are generally higher due to high risk of construction manager.
• Fast-track construction presents risks related to incomplete construction documents.
• Design changes during construction are extremely costly.
• No process to assure mutual trust relationships built for all parties.
• Is allowed in some states.

Construction Management with Bid of Fees and General Conditions

Construction is performed through a CM, who is selected on the basis of the lowest bid of fees and general conditions.

Advantages

• A/E, owner, and contractor (CM)may work together through all phases of the project.
• GMP may be fixed early, during the design phase of the project.
• Project can be expedited with fast-track construction.
• Owner can control the design.
• Provides design-change flexibility for complex building types.
• CM fee and/or general conditions amounts set through bid process.

Disadvantages

• Lowest bid of fees and/or general conditions is not an indicator of CM capabilities or potential outcomes.
• No sure path to cost savings. Fee and/or general conditions savings are generally much less than the cost of CM process inefficiencies.
• Fast-track construction presents risks related to incomplete construction documents.
• May not be allowed in some states.

Agency Construction Management with Design-Bid-Build

Agency construction manager is hired as a consultant to help represent the owner’s interests during the construction phase of a DBB project.

Advantages

• Same pros as noted for DBB process.
• Agency CM can provide industry experience and estimating, scheduling, and project management expertise for the owner’s benefit.

Disadvantages

• Same cons as noted for DBB process.
• Agency CM has no direct accountability for the success of the construction process.
• Owner must pay the fees of an agency CM in addition to the contractor’s fees for the construction work.
• Agency CM must be committed to representing the owner first… as a result, same potential antagonistic environment as DBB.

Multiple Prime Contracts

Multiple direct owner-contractor prime construction contracts that are bid for various trades, or groupings of trades, as needed to complete the entire scope of construction.

Advantages

• Construction method required by the procurement law in certain states.
• Can reduce markups of general contractors.
• Can be preferred by some established subcontractors who have prime contracts with the owner.
• Project can be expedited with fast-track construction.

Disadvantages

• Construction is awarded to multiple low bidders, without consideration of their qualifications.
• No single point of responsibility for the construction of the various trades related to the project.
• The owner is responsible for conflicts and inefficiencies between the multiple prime contractors.
• No contractor assistance with estimating, plan checking, and constructability reviews during design.
• Bid shopping can occur and actual overhead and profit amounts are unknown.
• Adversarial, change-order-oriented environment common, similar to DBB.
• Construction price is not fixed until after the design and all bid processes are completed.
• Time-consuming redesign and rebid is common, as is late, over-budget outcomes.
• Is not legal in some states.

Job Order Contracting

Job Order Contracting is a fully collaborative indefinite delivery, , indefinite quantity, long-term (one year, with up to four option years) construction method with general contractors and/or trades/subcontractors who are selected through a fee markup (co-efficient/factor) bidding process using an selected detailed unit price book (UPB), and who perform multiple projects through work orders. Based upon location, projects may include repair, renovation, and new construction.

Advantages

• Expedites projects by eliminating project-specific bid phases and reducing design documentation requirements.
• Properly employed, JOC is a highly collaborative environment that can consistently deliver quality, on-time, and on-budget outcomes.
• Allows for construction price “negotiation” based on an established construction cost unit-price book. (Note: prices are non-negotiable, however, quantities and selection of line items can be revised prior to acceptance of contractor proposal).
• Fully collaborative relationship between owner and awarded design/builder.
• Can be utilized with single or multiple job order contracting (JOC) contractors.
• Bid shopping is not allowed.
• Performance-based reward system.
• Fully cost and technical transparency.
• Robust, proven, auditable, and compliant process.
• Support, training, and technology for implementation and management is readily available.

Disadvantages

• Owner must possess requisite leadership skills and technical competencies.
• Organization must be committed to collaborative process that mutually benefits all parties.
• Not suitable for major new construction. Works best on the typical numerous and ongoing repair, renovation, sustainability, and minor new build projects.
• Allowable JOC total annual JOC Program size and individual JOC project size may be limited by jurisdiction procurement codes.
• May not be allowed, or be limited in some states.
• JOC vendors basing their services upon a percentage fee of total annual JOC construction volume can provide highly costly.
• JOC can be inappropriately simply speed project procurements and/or approve projects that otherwise would not have been approve via traditional methods.

Disadvantages

• Owner must possess requisite leadership skills and technical competencies.
• Organization must be committed to collaborative process that mutually benefits all parties.
• Not suitable for major new construction. Works best on the typical numerous and ongoing repair, renovation, sustainability, and minor new build projects.
• Allowable JOC total annual JOC Program size and individual JOC project size may be limited by jurisdiction procurement codes.
• May not be allowed, or be limited in some states.
• JOC vendors basing their services upon a percentage fee of total annual JOC construction volume can provide highly costly.
• JOC can be inappropriately simply speed project procurements and/or approve projects that otherwise would not have been approve via traditional methods.

Integrated Project Delivery

Integrated project delivery (IPD) is a fully collaborative, environment supported by multi-party agreement. The owner, the design team, and the primary contractor and subcontractors collaborate for the design and construction of a project on an early and ongoing basis. The goal of the collaboration is to minimize conflict among participants and steer the project to a favorable outcome for all participants. A sharing of project risk/reward is a key feature of IPD.

Advantages

• Expedites projects by assuring early and ongoing information sharing among all participants and stakeholders.
• Can significantly reduce project costs and improve other outcomes for all participants.
• Fully collaborative relationship between all parties throughout all phases.
• Focus upon process improvement.
• Overall cost savings.

Disadvantages

• Owner must possess requisite leadership skills and technical competencies.
• Organization must be committed to collaborative process that mutually benefits all parties.
• High initial set up costs make IPD suitable only for major new construction projects.
• Additional work required from all parties.
• May not be allowed in certain jurisdictions.

A thorough understanding of this Construction Project Delivery Overview & Comparison is a first step towards consistent achievement of best value outcomes for all participants and stakeholders.

California Contractor Tests the Bounds of Job Order Contracting

By Garret Murai, February 15, 2021 (source: https://calconstructionlawblog.com/2021/02/15/california-contractor-tests-the-bounds-of-job-order-contracting/)

Most contractors have heard of design-bid-build, design-build, construction manager at risk, and even public private partnerships, various project delivery methods, which, at their heart, focus on balancing the interests of the various parties involved in a construction project, from owners, to design professionals, to contractors. There’s one project delivery method you may not be as familiar with though: Job Order Contracting, also known by its acronym JOC.

JOC contracting is a project delivery method used on public works projects and has been authorized to be used by California K-12 school districts, community colleges, CalState universities, and the Judicial Council of California, which, among other things, is responsible for the construction of California state courts. It is intended to be used on smaller, independent, long-horizon project typically involving maintenance, repair and refurbishment. Think periodic maintenance of facilities.

JOC contracts are administered by public entities issuing a request for proposals. The public entity then awards a JOC contract to the lowest responsible bidder. The lowest responsible bidder then enters into a JOC contract with the public entity. JOC contracts typically have a duration of one (1) year and are limited to a total construction value of $4.9 million increased annually based on the Consumer Price Index. When entering into a JOC contract, a JOC contractor agrees to perform work at prices set forth in a Construction Task Catalog also known as a unit price book which includes current local labor, material and equipment costs. Unit prices are then adjusted by a “bid adjustment factor” based on the JOC contractor’s bid. When work is needed, the public entity will then issue a job order to the JOC contractor.

The next case, Los Angeles Unified School District v. Torres Construction Corp., Case No. B291940 (October 26, 2020), 2nd District Court of Appeal, involved a JOC contract, a JOC contractor who charged rates higher than those specified in the unit price book, and the JOC contractor’s defenses against claims by the public entity that it had overcharged for its work.

The Torres Case

Torres Construction Corp. was awarded a JOC contract by the Los Angeles Unified School District. The JOC contract included a Construction Task Catalog with unit prices as well as general conditions. Under the general conditions, after a job order is issued by LAUSD, Torres and LAUSD were to participate in a “joint scope meeting” from which the parties would develop a detailed scope of work. LAUSD would then issue a request for proposals to Torres who would prepare a “job order proposal” setting forth the cost of performing the work in accordance with the unit prices set forth in the Construction Task Catalog. Once approved, the job order proposal becomes a part of the JOC contract.

Between 2005 and 2008, Torres performed work on five projects under the JOC contract involving the installation of kitchen equipment and electrical upgrades. In 2011, LAUSD audited Torres’ project files as it was permitted to do under the JOC contract. Under the JOC contract, LAUSD was permitted to conduct an audit for period of up to four (4) years from the date a notice of completion was recorded. If the audit revealed overpricing or overcharges in excess of one percent (1%) of the total contract amount, then, an adjustment would be made equal to the overpricing or overcharging and LAUSD would be entitled to be reimbursed for the cost of the audit. The audit performed by LAUSD revealed substantial irregularities in the amounts charged by Torres, specifically, Torres did not supply equipment specified in its job order proposals, did not use pricing in line with unit bid pricing in the Construction Task Catalog, and did not provide the services specified in its job order proposals.

In 2012, LAUSD filed suit against Torres and its performance bond surety Western Surety Company. While the case was pending, LAUSD filed a motion for summary judgment on certain of the job order proposals which it prevailed on. As to other job order proposals, the trial court granted LAUSD’s motion for directed verdict following trial at the close of evidence. And, finally, as to the final job order proposals, the jury found in favor of LAUSD, and the trial court later awarded LAUSD prejudgment interest and attorney’s fees.

Torres appealed.

The Appeal

On appeal to the 2nd District Court of Appeal, Torres made a number of arguments challenging the trial court’s granting of LAUSD’s motion for summary adjudication, LAUSD’s directed verdict, and the jury verdict. Among other things, Torres argued:

1. The JOC contract, because it required that job order proposals be submitted after-the-fact, was not an enforceable contract but merely an agreement to negotiate.
2. The JOC statute required that LAUSD obtain an estimate so that it could compare Torres’ job order proposal with the estimate, and because LAUSD failed to obtain an estimate, no contract was formed because LAUSD failed to satisfy a condition precedent to entering into a contract.
3. By accepting Torres’ job order proposals, LAUSD waived its right to claim that Torres breached the pricing provisions of the JOC contract.

A. JOC Contract: Enforceable Contract or Mere Agreement to Negotiate

As to the first issue, whether the JOC contract was an enforceable contract or merely an agreement to negotiate, the Court of Appeal held that the JOC contract was an enforceable contract not merely an agreement to negotiate, because it contained “every key term of future job orders except one: the Scope of Work for any projects which LAUSD would assign to Torres.”

Further, held the Court of Appeal, as to the one key term not negotiated, the scope of work, a scope of work was ultimately agreed to by the parties after Torres submitted and LAUSD approved Torres’ job order proposals:

LAUSD is not suing on a Scope of Work that never materialized. There is no claim that the required Scope of Work for each job order was not established as required by the General Conditions of the JOCs. Under the General Conditions, once the Scope of Work is properly established, LAUSD issues its RFP, and the contractor is required to respond with a proposal which prices the work using the applicable formulas in the General Conditions. This is arithmetic, not negotiations.

B. LAUSD’s Failure to Obtain an Estimate: Failure to Satisfy a Condition Precedent or Not

Under the JOC statute, “[I]n order to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse,” a K-12 school district using a JOC project delivery method is required to “[p]repare for individual job order developed under a job order contract an independent unified school district estimate.” The estimate it to be “prepared prior to the receipt of the contractor’s offer to perform work” and is supposed to be “compared to the contractor’s proposed price to determine the reasonableness of that price before issuance of any job order.”

According to Torres, the statutory requirement that LAUSD obtain an estimate “prior to” receipt of Torres’ job order proposal was a condition precedent to entering into an enforceable contract, and because LAUSD failed to obtain an estimate “prior to” receipt of Torres job order proposal, the JOC contract was unenforceable.

The Court of Appeal disagreed finding that “[t]here is no language in the statute expressly conditioning a contractor’s duty to prepare a correctly priced proposal on LAUSD obtaining an independent estimate.”

Note: While I don’t necessary disagree with the Court’s conclusion that obtaining an estimate is not a condition precedent, I’m also not quite sure that I see the Court’s logic here, since the condition precedent argued by Torres’ is not its duty to prepare a correctly priced proposal, but rather LAUSD’s duty to obtain an estimate before receipt of Torres’ job order proposal as stated in the JOC statute (i.e., “prior to”).

C. Acceptance of Torres’ Job Order Proposals: Waiver by LAUSD of the Pricing Provisions of the JOC Contract or Not

Finally, Torres argued that by accepting Torres’ job order proposals, LAUSD waived the pricing provisions of the JOC contract even if the pricing contained in the job order proposals were at variance with the pricing provisions of the JOC contract. Again, the Court of Appeal disagreed.

First, the Court of Appeal pointed out, the JOC contract includes an anti-waiver provision which provided that:

No action or failure to act by [LAUSD] shall constitute a waiver of a right, remedy, or duty afforded to [LAUSD] under the Contract Documents, nor shall such action or failure to act constitute approval of or acquiescence in a breach thereunder, except as may be specifically agreed to in writing.

Second, the Court of Appeal pointed out, for there to have been a waiver, LAUSD would have had to have waived two rights, the right to have a proposal prepared by Torres in accordance with the JOC contract, and the right to audit Torres’ project files and recover overcharges:

Further, in order for appellants to prevail, LAUSD would have to have waived two rights: 1) the right to have a proposal prepared in accordance with the pricing formulas; and 2) the right to later audit the job order and recover overcharges. Appellants have not pointed to any admissible evidence showing that LAUSD personnel were aware that Torres’s proposals violated the General Conditions pricing formulas or that LAUSD expressly relinquished the right to require those formulas. Appellants point to the conduct of LAUSD personnel in approving and signing the job orders. Even assuming for the sake of argument that signing a job order without checking for pricing conformity could be viewed as conduct inconsistent with an intent to enforce the General Conditions pricing formula and that such waiver was not prohibited by the express terms of the anti-waiver provision, this conduct would only be inconsistent with an intent to enforce the pricing formulas through the job order issuance process. The conduct is not inconsistent with a belief that a subsequent audit could and would make a compliance determination and that any overcharges could be recovered. Thus, for waiver purposes, LAUSD’s conduct is not inconsistent with an intent to enforce the pricing formulas.

Finally, the Court of Appeal held that permitting a waiver would be inconsistent with the JOC process “by removing the requirement that a contractor follow the pricing formulas in the General Conditions in preparing its proposal.”

Conclusion

So, there you have it. A broad overview of the JOC project delivery method, which, unlike other kinds of project delivery methods, essentially includes two different proposal mechanisms, one when a contractor bids on a request for proposals, and another when a JOC contractor bids on a specific project, and one Appellate Court’s view of the application of contractual principals to that project delivery method.

Actionable construction cost data is required to assure financial visibility and transparency and to create a detailed, well-communicated scope of work.

The use of “national average” cost databases and “location factors” or “cost indexes” does not provide sufficient information to create reliable construction cost estimates.

Locally researched detailed unit price books, when used by an experienced construction cost estimator, are the only tool available to create reliable construction cost estimates for owners and their design/builders.

Actionable cost data is critical for successful …

• Forecasting cost of future projects

• Cost comparisons

• Establishing unit rates for tasks / work orders

• Monitoring and controlling of construction cost

• Design cost planning

• Compliance and Risk Mitigation

via www.4bt.us – Unlike other cost databases available, 4BT construction cost data includes locally researched labor, material, and equipment costs not national averages.  4BT construction cost data is created and maintained by an professional team with decades of cost engineering, project management, and capital planning experience, including working for organizations such as the R.S. Means Company, LLC,  and VFA, Inc.  A team that saw the need for more representative detailed line unit price construction cost data.

4BT OpenCOST Cost Data is available via the Cloud and comes with the 4BT-CE Cloud Cost Estimating Module.

JOC unit price book updates should be done annually, at a minimum.

The updates should include research and associated appropriate granular changes for all labor items (trades), as well as material and equipment updates for the specific local market.

Using a economic index, or an “adjustment factor” applied to the UPB at the end of each year is NOT RECOMMENDED. The use of factors as a means to update a UPB does provide sufficient cost visibility.

#constructioncostdata #adjustmentfactor #UPB #jobordercontract #jobordercontracting #unitpricebook #constructioncostmethodology #constructioncostresearch

Most people don’t truly understand JOC, and the the question “What is JOC / Job Order Contracting” invariably gets a a wide range of answers.

Below is a listing of items that define JOC.

1. JOC, in this case is an acronym for Job Order Contracting
2. JOC is a integrated planning, procurement, and construction delivery method that, depending upon applicable regulations/statues, can be used for repair, renovation, maintenance, and new construction for facilities and/or horizontal physical infrastructure.
3. JOC has improved significantly in its levels of comprehensiveness, and capabilities versus its early introduction to America in the 1980s.
4. JOC is a program-centric environment within which a contracts, projects, bids, estimates, and work orders follow specified stages and work flows.
5. All JOC tasks and costs are determined by a locally researched detailed unit price book.
6. Reward is performance-based.
7. Collaboration and training is mandatory for all participants.
8. Long-term mutually beneficial relationships are a hallmark of JOC.

JOC Benefits

1. Consistent detailed definition of, and clearly defined Scope of Work
2. Fewer change orders and disputes
3. Shorter procurement and overall project delivery times
4. Lower project life-cycle costs
5. Higher quality and satisfaction levels
6. Higher percentage of dollars spent on actual construction
7. Full financial visibility and transparency
8. Auditable and compliant

• Don’t Pay a % of Construction Volume
• Collaborate, Really Collaborate
• Tightly Couple Learning with Actions
• Manage Projects as a Program
• Increase Relatedness of All Parties

We are ready…. are you?

JOC is not a project, it is a program. Job order contracting is a program-based LEAN, integrated planning, procurement, and project delivery method.

Focus of all participants and stakeholders is upon well defined and well communicated mutually beneficial outcomes. Roles, responsibilities, and all other aspects associated with final outcomes are fully defined. Financial and technical detailed are also shared within a common data environment (CDE), which included a locally researched unit price book.

A JOC Program can handle a wide range of facilities and/or infrastructure repair, renovation, maintenance, sustainability, or new build requirements.

JOC must, however, be employed within a collaborative environment, with appropriate owner leadership, and in concert with fundamental LEAN principles. JOC should NEVER be used solely as a means to speed procurement and/or bypass requisite procurement oversight. JOC should also be employed only with full collaboration and joint support and decision-making the owner procurement and technical (facilities management, DPW, CE, etc.) teams. JOC Programs should also be audited by independent third parties, and compliant with all applicable laws/regulation.

What is a successful project? Whether its a repair, renovation, maintenance, or new build, understanding what constitutes success is a fundamental starting point.

Below is the start of a checklist for a successful construction project… your adds to the list?

• End user / customer satisfaction
• Delivery of the project on time
• Delivery of project within budget
• Delivery of the project at a fair price
• Delivery of the project with zero, or minimal change orders and/or small punch list
• Safe project record
• No complaints
• Minimal or no service disruption.
• No or minimize environmental impacts
• Full regulatory compliance
• Full financial visibility and transparency

Today, there are integrated construction planning, procurement, and construction delivery methods that assure consistent positive outcomes as well as supporting tools and services. procurement methods are available in the construction industry.

Selecting the proper construction delivery method is the single most important decision any real property owner or facilities management professional can make.

Inappropriate selection can increase project risk and negatively impact value cost, quality & timing.

Project delivery method selection is critical for the successful delivery of repair, renovation, maintenance, and major capital projects.

Choose wisely.

Relationship-based FM (facilities management) is a knowledge domain that is critical to improving associated environmental and economic outcomes.

Culture must be the primary focus of leadership. Without full support in this regard any LEAN repair, renovation, or new construction initiative will fail.

While it clearly difficult to grasp the perceived value of something that can’t be “touched”, successful facilities management requires a laser focus upon mutually beneficial outcomes for all participants and stakeholders, and associated Culture, Systems, and Processes that support associated efforts.

Unrealistic expectations, incompetence, poor/improper relationships generally result from the lack of leadership and robust processes. Clear leadership and robust systems create a culture of is teams and teamwork…. the most powerful mechanism for supporting efficient of building ownership practices.

Real proper owners and FMers bear the responsibility for professionally managing processes and creating sustainable value via relationship management.

High perceived relationship quality facilitates interactions in support of best value. Traditional methods are antagonistic in this regard.

Robust LEAN implementations build long-term relationships wherein owners, service providers, and building users know and appreciate the value of each other… through processes that support open, construction, and ongoing interactions.

A fundamental challenge remains. Most senior leadership members view FM as being a mainly technical/engineering and cost-driven discipline that deals with the built environment. Alignment between the built environment and organizational mission therefore remains a continuous challenge.

Until greater understanding is attained relative to the specific needs and requirements along the intertwined relationship and physical life-cycles across the AEC sector, the dimensions and drivers of perceived value in FM will continue to suffer.

Four BT, LLC

References:

Alexander, K. (2012), “Co-creation of value in FM”, in Alexander, K. and Price, I. (Eds), Managing Organizational Ecologies: Space, Management and Organizations, Routledge, New York, NY

Coenen, C. (2002), “Prosocial service behaviors and their role in influencing perceived service quality”, in American Marketing Association (AMA) (Ed), Conference Proceedings of 11th Annual AMA Frontiers in Service Conference, Maastricht (NL)

Coenen, C., von Felten, D. and Schmid, M. (2011), “Managing effectiveness and efficiency through FM blueprinting”, Facilities, Vol. 29

Coenen, C., von Felten, D. and Waldburger, D. (2012), “Beyond financial performance: capturing relationship value in FM”, in Jensen, P., van der Voordt, T. and Coenen, C. (Eds), The Added Value of Facilities Management: Concepts, Findings and Perspectives, Polyteknisk Forlag, Lyngby

European Committee for Standardization (CEN) (2006), EN 15221-1: European Standard in Facility Management-Part 1: Terms and Definitions, CEN, Brussels

Roper, K. (2012), “Educational implications of FM social constructionist view”, in Alexander, K. and Price, I. (Eds), Managing Organizational Ecologies: Space, Management and Organizations, Routledge, New York, NY

Ware, J. and Carder, P. (2012), “Raising the bar: enhancing the strategic role of facilities management”, RICS Research Report, London, November 2012