Pamphlet #4

 ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE

 RESOLUTION SERIES

 

Issued December 1991 

Revised May 2010 IWR Pamphlet 91-ADR-P-4 

PARTNERING GUIDE PARTNERING: 

A Tool for USACE, Engineering, 

Construction, and Operations 

 
The Corps Commitment to Conflict Resolution and Public Participation: 

This pamphlet is one in a series of pamphlets describing techniques for conflict resolution 

and public participation processes. The pamphlet is part of a Corps program to encourage 

its managers to improve water resources decision making by developing and utilizing new 

ways of resolving disputes. These techniques may be used to prevent disputes, resolve them 

at earlier stages, or settle them prior to formal litigation. These pamphlets are a means of 

providing Corps managers with information on various conflict resolution and public 

participation techniques used in the Corps, as well as a means to stimulate innovation. 

The first edition of the Partnering Pamphlet was written in 1991 by Lester Edelman, Chief 

Counsel, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Frank Carr, Chief Trial Attorney, U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers; and Charles Lancaster, Charles L. Lancaster and Associate . These pamphlets 

are produced by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources, Fort 

Belvoir, VA. 

For further information on the Conflict Resolution and Public Participation Program 

and Pamphlets please visit: http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/cpc/refADR.cfm
Partnering 

Alternative Dispute Resolution Series 

Pamphlet 4 

Updated By: 

Frank Carr 

Chief Trial Attorney (Retired) 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Senior Partner 

Carr, Swanson and Randolph LLC 

Original authors: 

Lester Edelman 

Chief Counsel 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Frank Carr 

Chief Trial Attorney 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Charles Lancaster 

Charles L. Lancaster and Associates 

Issued December 1991 IWR Pamphlet 91-ADR-P-4 

Updated May, 2010 
ii 
iii 

Table of Contents 

Partnering ............................................................................................................ 1 

What is Partnering? ............................................................................................... 1

Why Use Partnering? ............................................................................................ 2 

How Does Partnering Work? ................................................................................ 4 

What are the Essential Characteristics of Partnering? .......................................... 5 

What Concerns Are There About Partnering? ...................................................... 6 

 Frequently Asked Questions ............................................................................ 6 

Partnering Process .............................................................................................. 9 

Starting Early with Senior Management Commitment ......................................... 9 

 Introduce the Concept to Bidders .................................................................... 9 

 Secure Senior Management Support and Commitment ................................... 9 

 Identify the Stakeholders ................................................................................. 9 

 Select the Facilitator........................................................................................ 10 

 Final Planning for the Workshop .................................................................... 10 

Conducting a Partnering Workshop .......................................................................... 10 

 Participants and Duration ..................................................................................... 10 

 Informal Atmosphere ........................................................................................... 11 

 Workshop Agenda................................................................................................ 11 

 Closing the Workshop .......................................................................................... 12 

Preparing an Issue Resolution Ladder ...................................................................... 12 

 Reasons to Use an Issue Resolution Ladder ........................................................ 12 

 Design Considerations ................................................................................... 12 

Developing the Partnering Charter ...................................................................... 13 

 Mission/Vision Statement ............................................................................... 13 

 Common Goals ............................................................................................... 13 

 Guiding Principles/Values .............................................................................. 14 

Planning for Partnering Implementation .............................................................. 14 

 Arrange Regular Follow-up Meetings ............................................................ 14 

 Develop a Measurement Tool ......................................................................... 14 

 Plan Combined Activities ............................................................................... 15 

Partnering Best Practices ..................................................................................... 15

Conduct Partnering “Awareness” and/or “Refresher” Training ............... 15 

Hold an Early Partnering Workshop ......................................................... 15 

Select a Partnering Facilitator with Construction Experience .................. 15 

Identify the Key Internal and External Stakeholders ................................ 16 

Establish Effective Communications at the Initial Workshop .................. 16 

Create an Issue Resolution Ladder ........................................................... 16 

Make the Drafting of the Partnering “Charter” Easy ..........................................16 
iv 

Develop Meaningful Partnering Measurements .................................................17 

Hold Periodic Partnering Progress Meetings ......................................................17 

Provide for Recognition ......................................................................................17 

Partnering Experience ....................................................................................... 19 

Army Reserve Center, Fort Meade, Maryland..................................................... 19 

 Partnering Preparation .................................................................................... 19 

 Initial Partnering Workshop ............................................................................ 20 

 Follow-Up Partnering ..................................................................................... 21 

Human Performance Wing Wright-Patterson AFB ............................................. 21 

 Partnering Preparation .................................................................................... 21 

 Pre-Workshop Sessions .................................................................................. 22 

 Initial Partnering Workshop ............................................................................ 22 

 Follow-Up Partnering ..................................................................................... 24 

Partnering an Expanding Concept ....................................................................... 24 

Partnering Benefits ............................................................................................... 24 

 Tangible .......................................................................................................... 25 

 Intangible ........................................................................................................ 25 

Bibliography of Partnering Resources ............................................................. 29 

 

Appendices ......................................................................................................................31 

 A. Engineering and Construction Bulletin No. ECB 2006-14 ...................................33 

 B. Sample 1-Day Agenda ..........................................................................................35 

 C. Sample 2-Day Agenda ..........................................................................................37 

 D. Sample Ground Rules ...........................................................................................38 

 E. Sample Issue Resolution Ladder ...........................................................................44 

 F. HPW Partnering Charter ........................................................................................43 

 G. Sample Partnering Measurement Tool .................................................................45
v 

"Clearly, the best dispute resolution is dispute prevention. Acting to 

prevent disputes before they occur is key to building new cooperative 

relationships. By taking the time at the start of a project to identify 

common goals, common interests, lines of communication, and a 

commitment to cooperative problem solving, we encourage the will to 

resolve disputes and achieve project goals." 

LTG H. J. Hatch, Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Policy Memorandum 11, 7 August 1990 
vi 
1 

Partnering 

This pamphlet describes the concept and application of a highly successful Corps of 

Engineers program, Partnering, that supports its military and civil works construction 

and operations objectives. Partnering is a process designed to create a positive and 

cooperative relationship during contract performance or at any other time when 

working with others. Partnering facilitates the parties’ ability to define common goals, 

improve communication, and create a collaborative attitude among a group of 

individuals who must work together throughout contract performance. While 

Partnering is explored in this pamphlet in the context of construction and operations, 

this tool is applicable to any contractual relationship. 

The central objectives of Partnering are to encourage parties to change from their 

traditional adversarial relationships to a more cooperative, team-based approach, and 

to prevent issues from evolving into disputes. The Partnering concept is significant 

because it offers the most efficient form of dispute resolution: conflict prevention 

through joint problem resolution of issues as they arise. Indeed, the benefits of 

partnering go beyond preventing disputes and include improved communication, 

increased quality and efficiency, on-time performance, improved long-term 

relationships, and a fair profit and prompt payment for the contractor. 

When partnering was first initiated by the Corps of Engineers 20 years ago there were 

numerous hurdles and barriers that were encountered. These challenges were 

addressed and overcome and the partnering program has flourished. Today, the Corps 

of Engineers is not alone in the use of partnering to build better relationships as many 

other public agencies and private companies use partnering as a best business practice. 

However, there still remain misconceptions about, and challenges to, the partnering 

concept. This pamphlet should help to dispel them. 

What is Partnering? 

As the use of the partnering process spread beyond the Corps of Engineers, numerous 

definitions and descriptions of partnering have arisen. The earliest Corps of 

Engineers attempt at defining and describing partnering in 1991 stated that: 

“Partnering is the creation of an owner-contractor relationship that promotes 

achievement of mutually beneficial goals. It involves an agreement in principle to 

share the risks involved in completing the project, and to establish and promote a 

nurturing partnership environment. Partnering is not a contractual agreement, 

however, nor does it create any legally enforceable rights or duties. Rather, Partnering 

seeks to create a new cooperative attitude in completing government contracts. To 

create this attitude, each party must seek to understand the goals, objectives, and 

needs of the other-their "win" situation-and seek ways that these objectives can 

overlap.” 
2 

A more recent Corps of Engineers definition and description of partnering, found in 

Engineering and Construction Bulletin (ECB) No. 2006-14 dated November 1, 2006, 

states: 

“Partnering is a voluntary organized process by which multiple stakeholders having 

shared interests perform as a team to achieve mutually beneficial goals. It is based on 

establishing these goals early in the project lifecycle, building trusting relationships, 

and engaging in collaborative problem solving.” 

A simple review of these and other definitions and descriptions of partnering reveal 

certain common essential characteristics: shared interests, mutual goals, commitment, 

teamwork, trust, problem solving, and a synergistic relationship. These core 

characteristics are discussed more fully later in this pamphlet. 

Why Use Partnering? 

The best response to this question lies in an examination of the origins and 

development of the partnering concept. The construction industry has had 20 years to 

build a credible response rather than proffer an anecdotal reply. 

The seeds of the partnering process began to emerge in the construction industry in 

the late 1980s. At that time, the “Total Quality Management” (TQM) concept was 

being embraced as an enlightened business management practice while at the same 

time the construction and legal communities were facing a rapid rise in the number of 

contract disputes and cases in litigation. 

The TQM concept focused on initiating improvements in process and services, 

ensuring quality workmanship, and addressing customer satisfaction and needs. It 

also looked to establish long term business relationships based on trust and loyalty. 

This was beginning to bring a change in attitudes and business mindsets. 

Meanwhile, at the boards of contract appeals and in the courts, pending construction 

cases had more than doubled and the time to get a decision had stretched out to years. 

To stem this rising tide of growing unresolved construction claims and its destructive 

impact on business relationships, the construction and legal communities were 

experimenting with alternative dispute resolution (ADR) techniques such as 

mediation, arbitration, dispute review boards, and mini-trials to resolve cases outside 

of the courthouse. 

These two concepts, TQM and ADR, along with the techniques of team-building and 

collaborative problem solving, eventually forged together as the foundations for a 

new process that came to be know as “partnering.” 
3 

Early proponents and leaders in the partnering movement in construction included the 

Construction Industry Institute (CII) at the Texas A&M University, the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, and the Associated General Contractors of America (AGC). 

In 1987, CII formed a task force consisting of 20 academic, construction-company, 

and federal government representatives to explore a process to achieve the goals of 

total quality management and to reverse the trend of litigation that was rapidly rising 

in construction. The CII task force 1991 report “In Search of Partnering Excellence” 

referred to partnering as a “long-term commitment between two or more 

organizations for the purpose of achieving specific business objectives by maximizing 

the effectiveness of each participant’s resources.” The report went on further to state 

that “the relationship is based upon trust, dedication to common goals, and an 

understanding of each other’s individual expectations and values.” It described the 

potential benefits of partnering as “improved efficiency and cost effectiveness, 

increased opportunity for innovation, and the continuous improvement of quality 

products and services.” 

In the summary of the report, CII found that partnering was an improved management 

process for establishing and maintaining cooperative business relationships. It noted 

that partnering can replace the traditional adversarial business relationships with a 

collaborative new team approach that can enhance the competitive advantage of the 

partnering participants. Further, it reported that several organizations in the 

construction industry were beginning to get involved with partnering. 

The organization with the earliest partnering program was the Corps of Engineers. In 

the late 1980s, the Corps of Engineers used partnering on two construction projects in 

two separate engineering districts, Mobile and Portland. These two projects became, 

for all practical purposes, test case studies for the use of the partnering process. 

The first project, Oliver Lock and Dam Replacement, was in 1988 and involved a 

$110 million replacement lock and dam on the Black Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway 

at Tuscaloosa, Alabama, to replace an old undersized lock. The second project, 

Bonneville Dam Navigation Lock, followed shortly thereafter in 1989 and was a $330 

million navigation lock replacement. The use of partnering on these two projects was 

highly acclaimed by the participants, especially the Chiefs of the Construction 

Divisions, Dan Burns in the Mobile District and Howard Jones in the Portland 

District. Further, the benefits achieved on these two projects such as savings in time 

and costs were substantial. 

In 1991, as a result of these two pioneering partnering projects, the Corps of 

Engineers established the first formal partnering program in the construction industry. 

The program was established at a special 2-day meeting of all senior managers and 

leaders of the Corps of Engineers in Atlanta, Georgia. At the meeting the participants 

were informed about the success of the two projects, briefed on the partnering process, 

and presented with model partnering guidelines. At the conclusion of the meeting, 
4 

the participants fully endorsed the partnering concept and made a commitment to use 

it Corps-wide. 

Later in 1991, the Corps of Engineers published the first pamphlet fully describing 

and encouraging the use of partnering in the construction industry: “Partnering,” IWR 

Pamphlet-91-ADR-P-4. This highly-acclaimed publication was widely disseminated 

throughout the construction industry and was the basis of many federal, state, and 

private sector partnering programs. 

Also in1991, the Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) Quality in 

Construction Task force endorsed the Corp of Engineers partnering program. In a 

further effort to encourage the use of partnering by its membership, in September 

1991 AGC published a pamphlet entitled “Partnering a Concept for Success.” The 

introduction stated that AGC “strongly believes that the time has come for all the 

parties in the construction process to step forward and work together to take control of 

this costly and intolerable situation” by using partnering. 

Another early initiative by AGC to promote partnering among its members was the 

establishment in 1992 of the Marvin M. Black Excellence in Partnering Awards for 

the construction projects that best epitomized the principles of partnering. This 

program continues today and exemplary projects can be viewed on AGC’s website. 

In the decade that followed the pioneering work of the Corps of Engineers, numerous 

federal and state agencies and construction companies began to use partnering and to 

promote its success. These included the U.S. Air Force, the Naval Facilities 

Engineering Command (NAVFAC), The Army Material Command (AMC), and the 

General Services Administration (GSA), to list but a few federal agencies. At the 

state level, the Maryland State Highway Administration (MD SHA), the Arizona 

Department of Transportation (ADOT), the Ohio Department of Transportation 

(ODOT), and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) were developing 

their own partnering programs and assuming a leadership role in partnering for 

themselves on highway construction projects. 

How Does Partnering Work? 

The partnering concept creates a climate for success by building a cooperative team 

dedicated to a win-win atmosphere. It depends on the personal commitment of all 

individuals on the team. This commitment is built through personal relationships that 

must be formed early and reinforced throughout the project.

Partnering ideally begins after two or more stakeholder organizations reach an 

agreement or sign a contract to work together on a project. Experienced partnering 

stakeholders have concluded that the best time to initiate the partnering process is 

immediately after the contract award is made. The clear benefit to the stakeholders in 

an early start to partnering is that the process facilitates a means for the stakeholders 
5 

to identify a clear set of expectations that foster good communications, teamwork and 

collaborative problem solving from the start of the relationship to the completion of 

the project. 

 

The Partnering process can be separated into several distinct phases. For clarity and 

understanding these three phases as described below are: Starting Early with Senior 

Management Commitment, Initial Partnering Workshop, and Implementation 

Planning. Although Partnering is evident during each phase, the core of the 

Partnering process is developed at the Initial Partnering Workshop. These phases are 

discussed more fully in a later section of this pamphlet. 

What Are the Essential Characteristics of Partnering? 

Shared Interests – Stakeholders agree on a shared vision for the project and 

shared values for their relationship. 

Mutual Goals - Stakeholders agree on a shared set of common objectives to 

achieve at project completion. 

Commitment - Each stakeholder must be willing to make a real effort to 

participate in the partnership. 

Teamwork – Partnering is not a one-way street and success comes from 

stakeholders working together for their mutual success.

Trust - Stakeholders actions are consistent and predictable and their 

communications are open and honest. 

Problem Solving – Stakeholders confront and resolve issues quickly and at 

the lowest level. 

Who Wins Here? 

The government's project engineer watched with arms folded as the contractor's crew 

began a complicated concrete pour. He shook his head and said, ''They'll never make 

their schedule with that equipment. The buckets are too small and they'll need another 

crane; they'll spend all their time filling buckets instead of pouring concrete." He 

turned and walked back to the management office, mentally preparing to deny the 

request for time extension that he knew would be coming. Why didn't he let the 

contractor's project manager know of his concerns? ''That's their responsibility. They'll 

find out soon enough!"
6 

Synergistic Relationship - The stakeholders’ joint efforts are more powerful 

than any of the stakeholders working alone because it is based on the collective 

resources of all stakeholders. 

What Concerns Are There About Partnering? 

Frequently Asked Questions: 

Although the partnering concept has a proven record of success, some people still 

express concerns about the process. In fact, there are several frequently asked 

questions about the partnering concept that commonly arise. These are: 

Are the owner and the contractor "too close" during partnering? 

There is always a risk that a party may try to abuse or take an unethical advantage of 

the partnering relationship. However, this is rare. In the vast majority of projects that 

apply the partnering concept, stakeholders work hard to make everyone successful 

and achieve their common goals. 

Does partnering change the contract between the stakeholders? 

No. The contract is a legal document that describes the scope of work and the 

conditions for performance. Partnering does not change the contract. It is not a 

waiver of contractual rights and duties. Rather, partnering creates a team with a 

shared vision and a joint plan for the successful completion of the project in 

accordance with the contract. 

How expensive is partnering? 

The costs of partnering are minimal. Normally, these costs are for a facilitator and a 

meeting room, if needed. When compared with delays and litigation on similar 

projects these costs are very small. 

"I believe it is fair to say that quality work is never achieved in an adversarial 

relationship." 

Lester Edelman, Chief Counsel 1979 - 1998 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
7 

What do I need to do to start partnering? 

Partnering is voluntary. The project manager or project engineer should assist in 

starting the process. 

Isn’t partnering all relationships and no substance? 

Partnering has a long list of tangible and intangible benefits. These are discussed 

fully in a following section of this pamphlet. In ECB No. 2006-14 it notes that 

“Industry studies have shown that the correct application of partnering concepts 

improves quality, reduces cost and reduces contract performance periods.” Improved 

relationships lead to better outcomes. 
8 
9 

Partnering Process 

In the Corps of Engineers, partnering is a voluntary process with certain essential 

steps. In fact, these steps are common in almost every successful partnering program. 

An understanding of these steps is critical to the structure of the partnering process. 

They include: 1) starting early with senior management commitment; 2) conducting a 

partnering workshop; 3) preparing an issue resolution ladder; 4) developing a 

partnering charter; 5) planning for implementation. These steps are more fully 

described below. 

Starting Early With Senior Management Commitment 

Introduce the Concept to Bidders 

Starting the partnering process early before problems can arise on the job site or under 

the contract is essential to establishing the partnering relationship. In a solicitation or 

request for a proposal an offer to use partnering is a reflection of good planning. 

Points to be stressed are that partnering is a voluntary relationship designed to 

improve cooperation and communications during construction in order to achieve 

mutually beneficial goals. 

Secure Senior Management Support and Commitment 

The Corps of Engineers has issued numerous policy statements signed by various 

Chiefs of Engineers in support of partnering. Further, in Engineering and 

Construction Bulletin No. 2006-14 dated 01 November 2006, the importance of the 

partnering concept to the military and civil works programs of the Corps of Engineers 

is clearly stated. 

This visible top management support and commitment sends the vital message that 

partnering is a preferred business practice within the Corps of Engineers. Senior 

managers can demonstrate their support for partnering by personally attending the 

partnering workshop even if only to welcome the participants and stress the 

importance of partnering for project success. 

Identify the Stakeholders 

An early task during this step is for the major stakeholders, typically the owner and 

prime contractor, to identify all other stakeholders that can potentially impact the 

successful completion of the project and invite them to attend the workshop. These 

other stakeholders may include the design firms, principal subcontractors, suppliers, 

public utilities, and the end user of the project. 
10 

Select the Facilitator 

The selection of the facilitator for the partnering workshop is another important 

decision for the key stakeholders to make during this step. Early selection allows the 

facilitator to begin working closely with the key stakeholders to plan the timing, 

content, and agenda for the workshop. In larger projects neutral external facilitators 

are almost always used while in smaller projects internal (owner employees) 

facilitators are sometimes used to guide the workshop. 

A facilitator is a neutral third party who manages the process of the workshop and 

who can enable the workshop participants to discover for themselves the benefits of 

cooperative and collaborative action. External independent facilitators can provide 

expertise in organizational development, communications, group dynamics, dispute 

resolution, and team building. 

Final Planning for the Workshop 

The final planning actions are to pick a date, time and place for the workshop that is 

acceptable and convenient to the stakeholders. The workshop location is often at a 

neutral site such as a hotel meeting room or conference center meeting room. The 

facilitator usually finalizes the agenda after consulting with the stakeholders. Finally 

the major stakeholders need to agree on the costs of the partnering workshop and how 

it is apportioned between them. Whatever the decision, however, partnering costs are 

minimal and usually cover the facilitator’s fee and the meeting room rental. 

Conducting a Partnering Workshop 

The workshop is the basic building block for establishing the partnering relationship 

and for initiating the partnering process. At the workshop the participants begin to 

know each other, build trust, establish communications, develop a team spirit, set 

their common partnering goals for the project, and gain commitment to an 

implementation plan for sustaining the partnering relationship for the life of the 

project. 

Participants and Duration 

There is no set or ideal number of participants at a workshop. The number of 

participants at the workshop varies depending upon the complexity of the project. 

The workshop may have as a few as ten participants on a small project to well over a 

hundred participants on larger projects. 

Typically, the kick-off workshop is scheduled to last from 1-2 days. The complexity 

of the project and the past partnering experience of the stakeholders are used to decide 

its duration. Today, most projects are for 1-day because of the Corps of Engineers 

familiarity with partnering. 
11 

Informal Atmosphere 

At the workshop the participants have the opportunity to meet each other in an 

informal atmosphere. The workshop informality is established by allowing business 

casual dress and providing refreshments and food for participants throughout the day. 

Further, the facilitator assists in establishing the informal atmosphere of the workshop 

by making the design of the room open and conducive to face-to-face 

communications among the participants. 

Workshop Agenda 

The first phase of the workshop is to welcome the participants and have them

introduce themselves. This provides an opportunity for the participants to relax and 

also to identify the other participants and find out about their roles and responsibilities 

on the project. 

The next phase generally depends on the working history of the stakeholders and the 

participants partnering experience. When participants are new to the partnering 

process, the facilitator may conduct a short and simple team-building exercise to 

have them realize the benefits of working together rather than pulling separately. In 

workshops with more experienced and supportive stakeholders, team building 

exercises are rarely conducted because the participants want to get to the more 

substantive activities conducted at the workshop. Also, when there are workshop 

participants with little or no past partnering experience, the facilitator may take time 

on the agenda to explain the partnering concept and benefits. This is time wellspent. 

An important part of any workshop is to have the stakeholders identify their goals for 

the project. This phase may occur early in the workshop or later when the 

stakeholders are discussing the partnering Charter. When the stakeholders present 

their goals it is also informative to have them prioritize their goals. Interestingly, the 

stakeholders may use different words to describe their goals but they are often quite 

similar in reality. 

Another significant phase of the workshop is to have the stakeholders work directly 

on conflict prevention tools. Typically, this involves two tasks. First, the facilitator 

asks the participants to identify issues for resolution (rocks-in-the-road) that are 

present or foreseeable. The rocks in the road for construction projects are often: 

schedule, submittals, safety, communications/coordination, staffing, and 

environmental. Additionally, the participants also work to develop an “issue 

resolution ladder.” This tool is used to get the stakeholders to quickly identify 

future issues that will need resolution and to move them quickly towards a solution. 

The issue resolution ladder is discussed in more detail in the next section 
12 

A final workshop phase is to create an implementation plan for sustaining the 

partnering relationship after the workshop is concluded. This plan usually includes 

scheduling periodic partnering meetings to follow-up on the workshop enthusiasm 

and having the stakeholders evaluate in written form or by oral interview how well 

the relationship is working. This is more fully discussed in a section that follows. 

Closing the Workshop 

At the end of the workshop, the stakeholders prepare a written Charter as a visual 

reminder of their mutual commitment to their partnering relationship. It is usually a 

one-page document signed by all the participants at the end of the workshop. This is 

also discussed more fully in a following section. 

There are sample agendas for a one-day and a two-day workshop in the appendix to 

this pamphlet. 

Preparing an Issue Resolution Ladder 

An issue resolution ladder is a proactive conflict management tool that brings 

structure to the collaborative problem solving process for resolving project issues. . 

The ladder provides a visible structure that assists stakeholders to address issues 

quickly with appropriate decision makers. 

Reasons to Use an Issue Resolution Ladder 

The objective of the issue resolution ladder is to prevent issues from evolving into 

disputes. It also promotes efficiency in decision-making, promotes issues from 

stagnating, eliminates surprise, and shows a visible commitment to collaborative 

problem solving. This tool prevents issues from being hidden or ignored. 

Design Considerations 

The typical issue resolution ladder is created at the workshop and is depicted on a 

chart. The chart identifies the individuals from the stakeholder organizations that are 

responsible for resolving issues on the job-site and continues to identify individuals 

on each rung of the ladder above them that are responsible for issue resolution. The 

“The participants in the workshop need to recognize that honest, good 

faith differences may arise during construction and that alternative 

disputes resolution processes will provide a procedurally satisfying way 

to address these differences without destroying the relationship." 

Frank Carr, Chief Trial Attorney U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1991 
13 

typical ladder also sets a time limit for each level to consider the issue before it must 

pass up to the next level.

When designing the issue resolution ladder consider the following: 

• Provide easy access 

• Begin at the lowest level 

• Identify individuals by name and position 

• Balance authority at each rung 

• Set time limits 

A sample issue resolution ladder is displayed in the appendix. 

Developing a Partnering Charter 

At the conclusion of the Partnering workshop, the parties need to create a blueprint 

for their new relationship, which can be summed up in a Charter. The Charter is a 

written document prepared by the stakeholders at the workshop that creates a visual 

symbolic reminder of their commitment to the partnering concept and their mutual 

vision for the project. 

The Charter is usually a one-page document that is signed by all the participants at the 

end of the workshop. The content of the Charter will vary from project to project but 

generally it contains the stakeholders’ sense of the project’s significant mission or 

awe-inspiring vision, their set of common goals, and the behavior guidelines or values 

that the stakeholders will adhere to during the project. The facilitator needs to make 

sure that the participants understand the importance of the Charter and that the 

drafting process is not complicated or a waste of their time. 

Mission/Vision Statement 

Common Goals 

The typical partnering Charter includes a list of common goals that will provide 

measurable milestones for success on the project. These goals are often quantifiable 

and appear over and over again in partnering Charters. When all the goals are 

achieved, the contracting parties achieve a win-win result. Common goals that appear 

in partnering Charters are: 

 On-Time Delivery 

 Within Budget 

 Safety with No Lost Time 

 
14 

Value Engineering Supported 

 Zero Litigation 

 Quality Project 

 Re duce Paperwork 

Guiding Principles/Values 

The partnering team’s guiding principals or values are the intangible standards 

underlying success. They are the professional behavior standards that the 

stakeholders want to display on the project. Guiding principles or values often 

include statements similar to: 

 Work as a Team 

 Build Trust 

 Be Open and Honest in Communications 

 Treat Others with Respect 

 Practice Partnering Daily 

 Solve Problems across Organizational Boundaries 

 H ave Fun 

Planning for Partnering Implementation 

Arrange Regular Follow-up Meetings 

The importance of following up on the initial partnering workshop cannot be stressed 

enough. The goals and values of the partnering relationship need continued 

reinforcing so that the stakeholders do not let them fade away with time or under the 

stress of the project. Continuous evaluation of partnering goals and values is essential. 

The best means to accomplish this is to conduct regularly scheduled follow-up 

sessions. These sessions can be done in conjunction with monthly job progress 

meetings or periodically at four to six month intervals with all stakeholders present. 

Develop a Measurement Tool 

To evaluate whether the partnering relationship is working, a jointly developed 

measurement tool is helpful. A simple measurement tool is to list the goals and 

values from the Charter on a form and ask the individuals from the workshop to score 

each item from poor to excellent. The form may also provide space for narrative 

comments by the individual responding. 

The benefit of this measurement tool is that it can serve to identify areas that need 

improvement and to establish benchmarks for the relationship. A sample 

measurement form is in the appendix. 
15 

Plan Combined Activities 

There are other ways to advance the Partnering relationship through combined 

activities. Follow-up workshops could be scheduled to remind individuals of the 

partnering relationship, introduce new individuals to partnering, and to address new 

rocks in the road. Debriefing sessions at a breakfast or lunch meeting following 

significant milestones in the project could be the occasion for review of achievement. 

Awards ceremonies jointly conducted with senior management support could 

recognize and reinforce cooperative effort. Professional development programs

such as training sessions, workshops, and seminars could be scheduled to improve 

communication skills, collaborative problem solving techniques, and teambuilding 

efforts. 

Partnering Best Practices 

These partnering best practices are based on interviews with partnering participants, 

agency partnering coordinators, partnering facilitators, and articles published about 

the partnering process. The best practices represent the lessons learned from years of 

partnering experience. 

Conduct Partnering “Awareness” and/or “Refresher” Training

Although many organizations today have years of partnering experience, there is 

always a turnover of internal personnel and new stakeholders, such as contractors and 

sub-contractors that lack a clear understanding of the partnering process. To meet the 

partnering needs of these individuals, training should be continuous and can be 

conducted either informally at a conference or within another training course or 

conducted formally at a refresher training program. 

Hold an Early Partnering Workshop 

The partnering process should be initiated with a stakeholder workshop as soon as 

possible after contract award. When the partnering workshop is delayed, too often the 

stakeholders engage in old adversarial habits that reinforce confrontational practices 

making the partnering process not only more difficult to undertake but also less likely 

to have a constructive impact on the participants or the project. 

Select a Partnering Facilitator with Construction Experience 

Facilitators without some construction experience tend to view the partnering 

workshop as nothing more than a team building session and structure the workshop as 

such. The initial partnering workshop is likely to be much more effective and 

efficient when the facilitator has: 1) a clear grasp of the partnering concept and 
16 

process; 2) knowledge of construction and the issues that commonly arise; and, 3) 

experience in collaborative problem solving and/or conflict intervention. 

Identify the Key Internal and External Stakeholders

The partnering process can only work if the right people get to the table for the initial 

workshop. This applies to participants from both internal branches/divisions and 

external stakeholder organizations. The partnering facilitator can assist in identifying 

these internal and external elements and assure that there is a balance among the 

participant levels represented. This balance assists in building good communications 

by bringing participants “face-to-face” with their counterparts that they will work 

with on the project. 

Establish Effective Communications at the Initial Workshop 

Partnering requires open and honest communications among all the stakeholders to 

manage conflict and achieve mutual project goals. It begins by bringing the 

stakeholders together at the initial workshop to identify and address their expectations, 

issues (existing or perceived), and goals in a collaborative non-confrontational 

atmosphere. Having effective communication at the initial workshop builds a 

foundation for building trust among the stakeholders that can be further sustained 

during the life of the project. 

Create an Issue Resolution Ladder

An issue resolution ladder is a proactive conflict management tool that brings 

structure to collaborative problem solving across organizational boundaries. It 

prevents issues from stagnating and evolving into disputes. The issue resolution 

ladder accomplishes this by identifying the names of the responsible individuals at 

each level within a stakeholder organization who will deal with issues as they arise 

and the time they have to address it before sending to the next rung on the ladder. 

Make the Drafting of the Partnering “Charter” Easy 

The drafting of a partnering “Charter’ is an essential outcome for each project. 

However, too often the participants at the initial workshops complain that the time 

spent to develop the partnering Charter is a waste of time. This typical workshop 

activity can be expedited and made easier by having a core group of senior 

stakeholder participants draft a sample vision/mission statement prior to the workshop 

and by identifying stakeholder goals earlier in the workshop. 
17 

Develop Meaningful Partnering Measurements 

Precise measurement tools are necessary to obtain meaningful objective and 

subjective feedback on the effectiveness of partnering during and at the end of the 

project. This can be accomplished by the use of standardized measurement tools that 

rate both tangible and intangible elements of partnering. The items may include: 

communication, cooperation and respect, issue resolution, teamwork, safety, job 

progress, cooperation, trust, recognition, respect and appreciation of others. 

Hold Periodic Partnering Progress Meetings 

After the initial workshop it is good practice to hold periodic partnering progress 

meetings. These meetings are held to implement, monitor and evaluate partnering as 

well as to continuously address changes to the project. The partnering meetings can 

be informal as an agenda item on a regularly scheduled job progress meeting or at a 

specifically dedicated and facilitated partnering semi-annual meeting. When 

partnering efforts are not fully successful, it is often due to the lack of periodic 

follow-up partnering meetings. 

Provide for Recognition 

Partnering is not easy and requires hard work and dedication. Sincere and meaningful 

recognition for past hard work on a project is always appreciated and also provides 

motivation for future cooperation. This is also true for partnering efforts. 

Recognition can take various and diverse forms. It can be as simple as a public 

“thank you” and a sincere handshake or a formal award ceremony with the 

presentation of a plaque or other memento. 
18 
19 

Partnering Experience 

The Corps of Engineers has used Partnering extensively in a number of military and 

civil works construction projects since partnering became a Corps of Engineers best 

business practice. This section will describe a recent Corps of Engineers partnering 

project. Later, the beneficial results of partnering and valuable lessons learned are 

presented in this section of the pamphlet. 

The 1991 Corps’ Partnering pamphlet described two construction projects, Oliver 

Lock and Dam Replacement and the Bonneville Dam Navigation Lock, the first and 

only projects wherein the Corps had experienced the partnering concept and used the 

partnering process. The two projects selected below represent more current Corps 

experience with the partnering concept and, also, two different approaches to the 

partnering process. 

The first case, the Army Reserve Center at Fort Meade, is a more typical application 

of the partnering process with a 1-day workshop. This project was smaller and the 

key stakeholders were very familiar with the partnering process. The second project 

at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base was more complex with more stakeholders and 

many stakeholders without partnering experience. This project held a 2-day 

workshop with separate pre-workshop sessions for the government and contractor 

personnel. 

Army Reserve Center 

Fort Meade, Maryland 

This project concerned the construction of an Army Reserve Center at Fort Meade, 

Maryland for the 99th Regional Readiness Command (RRC). The Baltimore District 

and the Louisville District along with Harkins Builders, the key stakeholders, decided 

to have a one-day partnering workshop to initiate the project in January 2005. 

Partnering Preparation 

In preparation for the workshop the key stakeholders decided to use an external 

facilitator and to conduct the workshop near Fort Meade. The facilitator conducted 

survey interviews of a number of individuals from the stakeholder organizations that 

were invited to attend the workshop. The stakeholders included the above key 

stakeholders and representatives from Mason and Hanger, the design firm, the RRC 

and the Directorate of Public Works (DPW) at Fort Meade. The survey questions 

focused on the individuals’ knowledge of the partnering concept and process, their 

past experience with partnering, and the project. As a result of these interviews the 

facilitator drafted an agenda for the 1-day workshop and submitted it to the key 

stakeholders for their approval. It was accepted. 
20 

Initial Partnering Workshop 

There were 21 participants at the workshop representing the stakeholders. After the 

welcome and participant introductions, the participants discussed their expectations 

for the workshop: meet the people from the stakeholder organizations, establish good 

relationships from the start, know individual roles and responsibilities, understand the 

user (RRC and DPW) needs and interests, and learn the stakeholders’ goals. 

During the next phase of the workshop there was an overview of the project, a 

description of user needs, and the schedule. This was followed by the stakeholders 

describing their organizational structures with individual roles and responsibilities 

outlined. Next, the stakeholders identified their goals for the project. This took the 

participants up to lunch. 

In the afternoon, the stakeholders started by agreeing to a vision statement: “We, the 

Project Delivery Team, will work cooperatively and professionally to construct a 

quality Army Reserve Center at Fort Meade for our soldiers, within cost and time, 

that exceeds the expectations of all stakeholders.” After this task the stakeholders 

worked on identifying “rocks in the road” or issues for discussion at the workshop, 

and drafting action plans to address them. The subjects were: Phase II Award, 

RFI/Submittals, and Value Engineering. This was followed by drafting an issues 

resolution ladder for the project and writing the Charter. 

The Charter goals were: 

1. On Time and Within Budget 

2. Complete and Useable Facility 

3. Quality Construction and Safe Working Environment 

4. Customer Satisfaction 

5. Outstanding CCASS and ACASS Ratings 

 

The Charter guiding principles were: 

 Be Trustworthy 

 Be Honest 

 Be Respectful 

 Follow “The Golden Rule” 

 Be Proactive 

 Have Fun 

 Effectively Communicate 

 Be a Team Player 

 Have a Positive Attitude 
21 

The workshop concluded at the end of the day by having the participants come 

forward and sign the Charter. 

Follow-Up Partnering 

The stakeholders were committed to and continued to work on their partnering 

relationship after the workshop was finished. Informal partnering sessions conducted 

by senior stakeholder representatives were held to identify, discuss, and resolve 

partnering and project issues. At the completion of the project in September 2006, the 

partnering goals were met or exceeded. Of significant note, the Army Reserve Center 

was completed several months ahead of schedule and under budget. The Corps 

project engineer said that the partnering relationship was very successful. 

 

Human Performance Wing Facility 

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base 

In April 2008, the Louisville District awarded a $194.5 million contract to the joint 

venture (JV) of Archer Western and Butt Construction Company for the design and 

construction of the Human Performance Wing (HPW) complex at Wright-Patterson 

Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio. This Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 

project consolidates numerous Air Force and Navy medical units throughout the 

United States that are focused on aerospace medicine research, consultation, and 

education The HPW project covers approximately 1 million square feet and is 

scheduled for completion in 2011. This was the largest military construction contract 

ever awarded by the Louisville District. 

Partnering Preparation 

The preparation for partnering began immediately after the contract was awarded. 

One of the first actions was to decide on the stakeholders and the selection of the 

facilitators. The stakeholders included the Corps, the joint venture, design firms, 

subcontractors, the military commands relocating to WPAFB, BRAC officials, and 

WPAFB civil engineering personnel. There was a decision to use two independent 

experienced facilitators because of the number of anticipated participants at the 

workshop. The Corps selected one facilitator and the joint venture selected the other 

facilitator. 

The stakeholders selected the location for the meeting at a site near WPAFB and 

arranged for a large meeting room with several break-out rooms and refreshments. 

Government personnel paid for their refreshments and lunch. 

Meanwhile, the facilitators interviewed key stakeholder participants in order to learn 

about the project and to assist in developing a workshop agenda. The facilitators 

focused on three areas: partnering, people, and the project. The facilitator interviews 
22 

revealed that there was a lack of partnering experience and knowledge among a 

significant number of anticipated workshop participants, there were individuals that 

needed to be invited to the workshop that were not previously on the workshop 

participant list, and there were several project issues that needed to be discussed at the 

workshop, including the mandatory BRAC scheduled project completion date. This 

information obtained during the interviews was critical in assisting the facilitators in 

developing the workshop agenda. 

In addition to drafting a workshop agenda, the facilitators recommended two preworkshop sessions, one for government personnel and one for contractor employees, 

to introduce partnering concepts to the participants and to have them get to know each 

other better (especially the government). The key stakeholders agreed and the 

facilitators designed a half-day session for the two stakeholder groups for the day 

before the workshop. 

Pre-Workshop Sessions 

Approximately 35 individual attended each of the two pre-workshop sessions. The 

sessions had the same agendas with similar objectives: identifying individual 

perceptions of partnering, clarifying the partnering concept and process, recognizing 

the characteristics of a model project, developing their stakeholder goals for the 

project, and identifying “rocks in the road” or issues for discussion at the workshop. 

The model project characteristics, stakeholder goals, and “rocks in the road” from 

each session were recorded and presented at the workshop on the following day. 

Initial Partnering Workshop 

The initial partnering workshop for the entire partnering team was scheduled for two 

days in May 2008. There were over 100 participants at both days of the workshop. 

The program was kicked off by welcoming remarks from the key stakeholders’ senior 

executives. Their statements set a positive tone in support of partnering. This was 

followed by an informative overview of the project and the BRAC scheduling 

challenges. 

During the first day, the participants heard feedback from the pre-workshop sessions, 

participated in a team-building activity, described their organizations to the other 

stakeholders, and identified “rocks in the road.” Later that same day, the participants 

selected four rocks in the road to address and formed teams to develop action plans. 

The teams considered: Untimely Response, Change Management, Schedule, and 

Equipment. Teams developed action plans for dealing with the rocks on the first day 

and presented these plans to the entire stakeholder team for comments and approval 

the next day. 

On the second day, the workshop opened with an icebreaker. Then, the participants 

received feedback on the action plans from the break-out teams, developed an issue 
23 

resolution ladder, and agreed to a partnering Charter with a common vision, mutual 

goals, and team values. 

The Charter’s vision highlighted the stakeholders’ commitment to building an 

“award-winning, international showplace for Aerospace Medicine Research, 

Consultation, and Education to enhance the performance of our nation’s war 

fighters.” This vision statement clearly expressed the strategic target of the team and 

was also compelling and inspiring. 

The mutual goals that the team aspired to achieve together by the end of the project 

were realistic and for some of them, such as on-time and within budget, measurable 

performance objectives. The mutual team goals were: 

 Safe Project for all Stakeholders 

 Quality, World-Class Facility 

 On Time Completion 

 Maintain Mission 

 Within budget 

The team values in the Charter described what was needed to maintain the 

stakeholders’ positive relationship. The values were: 

 Professional, Open Communications 

 Right People, Right Seats, Right Bus, 

 Willingness to take a risk 

 Trust and Mutual Respect 

 Take Responsibility 

 H ave Fun 

After the Charter was printed with each stakeholder logo affixed, all participants 

signed the Charter (see Appendix F of this pamphlet). Finally, the workshop 

participants agreed to an informal implementation plan with periodic meetings and a 

draft measurement survey. 

At the conclusion of the partnering workshop, the participants were asked what was 

most beneficial for them. Responses included: 

 “Meeting the other people that will work on the project.” 

 “Putting a face to a name.” 

 “Learning about partnering.” 

 “Understanding the project better.” 

 “Identifying rocks in the road.” 

 “Hearing about the other stakeholders’ goals.” 

 “Getting agreement on a process to resolve problems.” 

 “Being invited to the partnering session.” 
24 

William T. Butt, Jr., President of Butt construction, said that “True partners accept 

that the success or failure in completing a project safely, on time with high quality is a 

reflection of the efforts of all stakeholders.” 

Follow-Up Partnering 

The primary means used to sustain the partnering concept on this project was to have 

partnering as an agenda item on the monthly project management meetings and on the 

quarterly Senior Advisory Group (SAG) meetings. This has allowed partnering to 

remain in front of the stakeholders. 

Additionally, after the workshop a partnering survey was developed as a measurement 

tool to evaluate the partnering relationship. The surveys were conducted in October 

2008 and January 2009. The results and an analysis by one of the facilitators were 

provided to the SAG. Others surveys are planned for the future. 

The survey looked at the following areas: safety, quality, schedule, staffing, trust, fun, 

communication, issues, cost/budget, modifications, base impact, and stakeholder 

attitudes. The good news was that the stakeholders were meeting expectations and 

making excellent progress in most of the areas. However, there were a few issues that 

the stakeholders needed to address. The survey helped by identifying these areas and 

opening them up for discussion. 

Partnering: An Expanding Concept 

Initially partnering was viewed as a process unique to the construction industry in the 

United States. Today partnering is practiced internationally from the east in Australia, 

New Zealand, and Hong Kong to the west in Canada, England and the European 

Union. Further, in universities and institutions of higher learning worldwide, 

partnering is being taught as part of engineering, business, and legal academic 

programs. 

Additionally, partnering is no longer just a best business practice for the construction 

industry. The use of partnering has been successfully applied to environmental 

restoration and clean-up projects, intellectual property ventures, service contracts, 

agency/association partnerships, and numerous other fields wherein good 

relationships are necessary to achieve mutual business goals. 

Partnering Benefits

Another frequently asked question about partnering is what can be achieved or gained 

by the use of partnering. As time has provided a number of partnering projects for 
25 

review, the answer is now quite clear. Stakeholders, such as the Corps, NAVFAC, 

MD SHA, AGC, and others who have participated in partnering report that there are 

significant tangible and intangible benefits. The following benefits are the most often 

noted by the stakeholders. 

Tangible Benefits linked to contract elements (e.g. time, costs, quality, conflict 

resolution and safety): 

 Completes projects on-time and within budget 

 Improves quality performance 

 Enhances efficiency and cost effectiveness 

 Produces substantial value engineering savings 

 Reduces paper work 

 Expedites early resolution of issues at the project level 

 Lowers the number of formal claims and litigation 

 Improves job-site personnel safety with no lost-time accidents 

 Provides safety to the public and community surrounding the project 

 Increases customer satisfaction 

Intangible Benefits linked to human elements (e.g. trust, communication, respect, 

recognition and integrity): 

 Improves stakeholder relationships on the job site 

 Facilitates cooperation & teamwork 

 Creates an atmosphere for open and honest communication 

 Builds trust among all stakeholders 

 Eliminates surprise 

 Encourages empowerment to anticipate, address, and resolve problems 

 Sets a higher degree of appreciation, recognition and respect among 

project participants 

 Establishes a better and fun working environment 

 Provides more innovative and creative solutions to problems 

 Enhances business reputations. 

Interestingly, the intangible benefits that improve working relationships are regarded 

by many individuals as the results that have revolutionized the construction industry. 

When disputes do inevitably arise on the job-site, partnering offers a system of 

communication, identification of the problem, teamwork, and respect, instead of the 

former traditional pattern of diminished communications, confrontation, fingerpointing, distrust, and escalating hostility. Partnering creates an environment for winwin results as described in the benefits abo 
26 

"I personally believe in and want to see the Corps lawyers practice preventive law. 

This requires putting our efforts into avoiding disputes, and not wasting precious 

resources in litigation. Partnering offers a ray of hope in avoiding disputes and 

building cooperative relationships." 

Lester Edelman, Chief Counsel, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1991 
27 

Bibliography of Partnering Resources 

American Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials, AASHTO 

Partnering Handbook 2005 

American Bar Association, Task Force on Dispute Avoidance and Early Dispute 

Resolution, Section of Public Contract Law, “Best Practices in Dispute Avoidance 

for Government Contracting: Chapter Two – Partnering,” 2002

Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), “Building Partnerships Handbook,” 

January 2006 

Associated General Contractors of America, “Partnering: A Concept for Success,” 

September 1991 

Associated General Contractors of America, “Partnering: Changing Attitudes in 

Construction,” October 1995 

Associated General Contractors of America, Marvin M. Black Excellence in Partnering 

Awards, 

http://www.agc.org/cs/about_agc/recognition_programs/marvin_m_black_excelle

nce_in_partnering_awards 

Bennett, J. and Peace, S., “Partnering in the Construction Industry,” June 2006 

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), “Field Guide to Partnering on 

Caltrans Construction Projects,” September 2008 

Carr, Frank, and David Johnson, “The Corps: Putting the Handshake back into 

Construction," The Subcontractor, vol. 13, no. 1, July 1991 

Carr, Frank, "Partnering, Disputes Avoidance the Army Corps of Engineers Way," 

American Arbitration Association, the Punchlist at vol. 14, no. 3, 1991 

Carr, Frank “Partnering in Construction: A Practical Guide to Project Success”,

American Bar Association Forum on the Construction Industry 1999 

Carr, Frank, “Partnering, “A Management Best Practices Tool”; International Bar 

Association Conference, Chicago, Illinois 2006 

Center for Conflict Resolution, Salisbury University, “A Best Practices Manual for 

Partnering” 2006 

Center for Public Resources (CPR) Institute for Dispute Resolution, Master Guides, 

“Partnering: Avoiding and Resolving Information Technology Disputes: Better 

Solutions for Business” 2005 
28 

Cibinic, John and Ralph C. Nash, "Partnering: A New Corps of Engineers Effort to Avoid 

Disputes," The Nash and Cibinic Report, vol. 5, no. 6, 1991.

Construction Industry Institute, ''Partnering: Meeting the Challenges of the Future," CII 

Partnering Task Force Interim Report, August 1989. 

Cowan, COL Charles E., "A Strategy for Partnering in the Public Sector/, Paper 

presented to the ASCE Construction Congress, April 15, 1991. 

Cowan, COL Charles E., "Partnering in Fixed Price Contracts - A New Paradigm," 

Speech, January 14, 1990. 

Federal Bureau of Prisons, “Alternative Dispute Resolution Process – Partnering 

Program,” June 2007 

Gray, Barbara. Collaborating. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1989. 

Geary, Richard, Pres. Kiewit Pacific Co., "Contractor View of Partnering on Bonneville 

Lock," Paper presented at ASCE Construction Congress, April 15, 1991. 

Hancher, Donn E., In Search of Partnering Excellence: Final Report of the Partnering 

Task Force of the Construction Industry Institute, Construction Industry Institute, 

University of Texas at Austin, February 1991.

Harmon, K., “Resolution of Construction Disputes: A Review of Current 

Methodologies,” Leadership & Management in Engineering October 2003 

Hartnett, J. T., "Partnering," The Military Engineer, vol. 82, no. 536, July 1990. 

Hatch, LTG H. J., ''Partnership Ethic vs. Adversary Relationship," Speech, SAME Senior 

Executive Group, Omaha, NE, 16 October 1990. 

Johnson, David P., "Partnering in Government Contracts: The Ultimate in Dispute 

Resolution?" World Arbitration and Mediation Report, vol. 1, no. 7, November 

1990. 

Jones, Howard B., "Partnering on the Bonneville Navigation Lock," paper presented at 

the ASCE Construction Congress, April 15, 1991. 

Kanter, Rosabeth Moss, When Giants Learn to Dance, New York: Simon and Schuster, 

1989. 

Maryland State Highway Administration (MSHA), “Field Guide to Partnering on MSHA 

Projects,” 2002 
29 

Master Builders Australia Inc., Construction Industry Development Agency, Partnering, 

1993 

Mosley, D. C., C. C. Moore, M. L. Slagle, "Partnering: Guidelines for Win-Win Project 

Management," submitted to Project Management Journal, July 1990. 

Mosley, D. c., C. C. Moore, M. L. Slagle, and D. R Burns, “The Role of the O. D. 

Consultant in Partnering," Organization Development Journal, vol. 8, no. 3, fall 

1990, pp. 43-49. 

Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), “(Construction) Partnering System,” 

NAVFACINST 11013.40A 2004 

Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), “Guide to Partnering for 

Environmental Projects,” 2007 

Ohio Department of Transportation, ODOT Partnering Handbook, 2000 

 

Ronco, J. S., “Partnering Manual for Design and Construction,” 1995 

Slagle, M. L., "Initial Partnering Evaluation Report: Oliver Lock and Dam Replacement 

Project," Report to Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, December 22, 1989 

Stephenson, R. J., “Project Partnering for the Design and Construction Industry,” 1996 

Tri-Service Committee (Air Force, Army, and Navy), “Partnering Guide for 

Environmental Missions of the Air, Force, Army, and Navy,” July 1996 

Thomas, G. and Thomas, M., “Construction Partnering and Integrated Teamwork,” 2002 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, "Sponsors' Partnership Kit," Directorate of Civil Works, 

1989 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, "A Guide to Partnering for Construction 

Projects: A Process for Implementation," January 1990 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, "Partnering," Informational Brochure, 

August 1989. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, “Partnering Guide for Civil Missions,” IWR Pamphlet 

98-ADR-P-7 1998 
30 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, “Deciding Whether or Not to Partner Small Projects: A 

Guide for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Managers,” IWR Pamphlet 95-ADR-P-6 

1995 

U.S. Army Material Command, “Partnering for Success,” August 1996 

Ware, T.R., “Partnering for Success,” ASCE March 1994 

Wormington, J. R, "Cape's New Facility Highlights Success of Total-Quality Approach," 

The Missileer, vol. 32, no. 31, Friday Aug. 10, 1990. 
31 

Appendices 
32 
33 

Appendix A 

Engineering and Construction Bulletin

No. ECB 2006-14 Issuing Office: CECW-CE Issued: 01 Nov 2006 

Subject: Importance of the Application of Partnering Concepts to MILCON and Civil 

Works Missions 

Applicability: Guidance 

1. References: 

a. UFGS 01 30 00 (01310) Administrative Requirements (07-2006) 

b. MILCON Transformation Model RFP 

c. ECB No. 2003-9 (30 May 2003) 

2. The purpose of this ECB is to emphasize the importance of the application of 

partnering concepts to our military and civil works construction and operations missions 

to enhance USACE –Industry communication, teamwork and conflict management in 

support of an unprecedented workload and USACE transformation. 

3. USACE is facing numerous challenges to successfully execute its MILCON and Civil 

Works Programs. These challenges are the result of Army Transformation, Integrated 

Global Positioning and Basing Strategy (IGPBS), the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), 

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC), the devastation caused by Hurricanes Katrina, 

Rita and Wilma, world demand on basic commodities and associated inflationary 

pressures, and saturated labor markets. These challenges continue to stress the demands 

on USACE and industry resources and pose significant risks to successful mission 

execution. 

4. In the past, we have received input from the construction industry that we do not 

uniformly practice construction partnering. Most recently we received similar input from 

the dredging industry. Now more than ever, we must embrace the concepts of partnering 

and recognize that USACE and industry are dependent on each other for mutual success. 

Gone are the days when design and construction inefficiencies could be ignored and 

buried in project costs. Our customers demand ever-increasing value from the limited 

dollars that are available. USACE and industry must respond to this challenge and 

continue to develop innovative ways to work together that create added value through 

increased productivity. Partnering concepts, when properly applied, creates added value. 

Industry studies have shown that the correct application of partnering concepts improves 

quality, reduces cost and reduces contract performance periods. 

5. Partnering is a voluntary organized process by which multiple stakeholders having 

shared interests perform as a team to achieve mutually beneficial goals. It is based on 

establishing those goals early in the project lifecycle, building trusting relationships, and 

engaging in collaborative problem solving. It requires empowering team members to 

solve problems at the lowest organizational level possible. A successful partnering 
34 

arrangement: removes organizational impediments to communication among 

stakeholders; achieves decisions through consensus when possible; results in joint 

responsibility for maintaining, improving and nurturing the partnering process; and 

demonstrates a personal commitment by every member of the team. It typically requires 

some or all of the following elements to be successful: a trained facilitator or team coach, 

a team charter articulating its mission and goals, a team assessment tool, an issue 

resolution process, and regular team building sessions throughout the life of the project. 

6. Partnering is not a social process that simply promotes courtesy and politeness - but 

rather is a good faith effort at joint problem resolution. It is not mandatory, but rather 

voluntary - it does not attempt to mandate behaviors but seeks to influence them. It is not 

a panacea and will not result in mutually acceptable resolution to all problems - the 

stakeholders will feel better about the outcomes and are willing to continue with the 

process. It is not a one-way street and will not work if some parties adhere to an “us 

versus them” mindset - it will succeed with a win-win mindset. It is not successful 

without total senior management commitment - it is successful if the team has the right 

skill-sets, is empowered by senior management and receives the requisite resources to get 

the job done. It is not a waiver of contractual rights and responsibilities - it is a 

recognition and respect of those rights and responsibilities and a willingness to work 

together to help all stakeholders fulfill them. It is not contrary to the Government’s best 

interests – it is consistent with the Government’s implicit duty to cooperate with its 

contractors. 

7. Various resource materials are available to get help and learn more about partnering. 

They include: 

a. http://www.construction-institute.org 

b. http://www.adr.org 

c. http://www.agc.org 

8. USACE leadership is committed to fostering cooperative relationships with its industry 

partners. The partnering concepts discussed here, when properly applied, will achieve 

that end one project at a time and will help us achieve our goals in these unprecedented 

times. 

9. This ECB has been coordinated with the Office of the Chief Counsel and the Principal 

Assistant Responsible for Contracting (PARC) 

10. The point of contact for this ECB is Paul Parsoneault, 202-761-5533. 

//S// //S// 

GERALD W. BARNES, P.E. DONALD L. BASHAM, P.E. 

Chief of Operations Chie f, Engineering and Construction 

Directorate of Civil Works Directorate of Civil Works 
35 

Appendix B 

Sample 1-Day Initial Partnering Workshop Agenda 

A 1-day partnering workshop is used when the stakeholders and participants are familiar 

with the partnering process and there are a small number of participants. 

Morning Afternoon

Welcome Lunch

Introductions Project Goals 

 

Workshop Expectations Rocks in the Road 

 

Agenda Review Rocks in the Road Feedback 

Ground Rules Issue Resolution Ladder 

Break Break 

Partnering Description Guiding Principles/Values 

 

Project Overview Charter Development 

Mission/Vision Discussion Im plementation Strategy 

 

Organization Structure Group Photo 

Charter Signing/Closure 
36 
37 

Appendix C 

Sample 2-Day Initial Partnering Workshop Agenda 

A 2-day partnering workshop is often used when there are a large number of stakeholders 

and participants attending the workshop or when the other non-Corps stakeholders are 

new to partnering. 

Day 1 

Morning Afternoon

Welcome Lunch

Introductions Organization Structure 

 

Workshop Expectations Project Overview 

Break Break 

Team Building/Communications Exercise Model Project

 

Agenda Review Project Goals 

Ground Rules Mission/Vision Discussion

Partnering Description Identifying Rocks in the Road 

Day 2 

Morning Afternoon

Icebreaker Exercise Lunch

Working on Rocks in the Road Guiding Principles/Values 

 

Break Charter Development 

 

Rocks in the Road Group Feedback Break

Issue Resolution Ladder Im plementation Strategy 

 Group Photo 

 

 Charter Signing/Closure
38 
39 

Appendix D 

Sample Ground Rules 

 Support full participation of all participants 

 Stay focused on partnering 

 Listen to others 

 Offer solutions not barriers 

 Respect one person speaking at a time 

 Return from breaks promptly 

 Use time wisely 

 Avoid personal attacks 

 Put cell phones on ‘vibrate’

 Act as adults – if you need a break, take it without disturbing others 
40 
41 

Appendix E 

Sample Issue Resolution Ladder 

 Time (5 Days) 

 Time (5 Days) 

 Time (3 Days) 

Contractor Corps of 

Engineers 

User 

COL Smith 

District 

Engineer 

Shirley A. 

President 

LTC Doe 

Commander 

Mark G. 

Chief of 

Construction 

Pete C. 

Vice President 

for Construction 

Edward E. 

Division Chief 

Carlos E. 

Area 

Engineer 

Ted M. 

Project 

Executive 

Steve L. 

Superintendent 

Susan P. 

Senior Project 

Manager 

Mary J. 

Project 

Manager 

Johnny P. 

Project 

Engineer 

Design Other 

Firm 

Lowest Level 

Job-Site 
42 
43 

Appendix F 

HPW Partnering Charter 
44 
45 

Appendix G 

Sample Partnering Measurement Tool 

Partnering Evaluation - Goals 

Poor 

1 

Marginal 

2 

Satisfactory 

3 

Good 

4 

Excellent 

5 

Points 

A. 

Goal 

 

B. 

C. 

D. 

E. 

Partnering Evaluation - Values

Poor 

1 

Marginal 

2 

Satisfactory 

3 

Good 

4 

Excellent 

5 

Points 

A. 

Value 

 

B. 

C. 

D. 

E. 

COMMENTS: 

Evaluation Submitted by Team Member from: 

1. Corps ___________ 

2. Contractor ___________ 

3. Architect ___________ 

4. Other ___________ Specify: ___________