The HUB can't become a RUB: Relying on the abilities of people involved

With the announcement of the HUB Program the NYC DOB has initiated probably the most profound service enhancement in the construction and regulatory environment since the D14 process of 1975. The DOB's effort to use advanced technology as a means to obviate geographic and bureaucratic boundaries is innovative and far reaching. The HUB which rolls up many of the new service initiatives recently implemented such as the Hi Rise unit and the build it together program, can be an exciting and efficient initiative that could expedite the construction permitting process. First and foremost some pitfalls and/or entrenched cultures on both sides of the fence (DOB and Industry) must be set aside. One of the components, the integration of ancillary agency involvement (landmarks, DOT, NYCFD, DEP) must be carried out. The suspension of the former successful program of the integration of these review elements and agencies into the borough operations is still a mystery and one can only assume be attributed to the territorial impulses of the ancillary agencies who never really bought into the integration process. One looks forward to the "HUB" resurrecting the old "reconsideration" process in some fashion and obviating the current bureaucratic "determination" process. By having face to face time with the decision maker it will once again give the industry the ability to make their case for a reading of grey and/or interpretative areas of the building code and zoning resolution in a Socratic forum. Another pitfall or concern will be how the "HUB" will handle the DOB policy of 3rd party internal review (i.e. zoning) of their examinations. Nothing is more vexing than obtaining an approval but having it overturned or an objective raised after the fact. As an industry we face a number of challenges we must step up to: * Members of the design team must make themselves available and be ready to respond to the DOB "comments." As we know much of the design team relies upon consultants for zoning and building code interpretations and their game will need to be stepped up to effectively and timely respond to the DOB comments. * The code review and consulting component of the pre-construction process becomes even more important in order to determine possible issues and develop a team consensus game plan for how to deal with them. * The "Quarterbacking" of the review and approval process becomes of greater importance. Coordinating the "presence" of the design team for the examination and to review and develop comment responses and plan amendments and changes creates a compliance CM function unlike any we have experienced before. * The development of a compliance game plan from filing, approval, construction and C of O requires that the "pieces" be brought together at the beginning. As an example, should the inspection process be brought into the Hi-Rise task force? The processing of TR-1s must be done not just to do it but to ensure the proper inspections are identified and filed as required items. Any "questionable" or incorrect inspection requirement must be dealt with at the front end of the process rather than trying to deal with them during the time sensitive C of O process. Also proper "required items" should be identified and reviewed by the team and responsibilities for each clearly delineated and coordinated and followed through by the "Quarterback" It is clear that the advent of the "HUB" program requires a re-definition and reassignment of compliance scope and responsibilities in order to take advantage of the return to a more one to one, face to face relationship, that the program will reinstate. Never has it been more clear that the initiation of a new program that has all components to succeed becomes reliant on the abilities of the people that are involved from both sides of the fence to coordinate, interface and share the same goal. Jane Webster is VP of compliance and Matt Caruso is executive VP of operations for Domani Consulting, Valley Stream, N.Y.