“All for one and one for all” isn’t often the tune you hear sung by the architect and general contractor working on the same project, ostensibly as partners.

The architectural firm and general contractor are arguably two of the most important parts of the three-musketeer development equation for commercial projects, second only to the deep pockets financing a project.

To an outside observer, the architect and general contractor appear inextricably linked.

Think about it. The most artful of designs could never be built unless the hammers are swinging. Antoni Gaudi was famous for his modernist Catalan aesthetic in architecture, not his technique swinging a hammer. Conversely, the table saws and drills wielded by the hard hats in the field won’t start spinning until they have well-laid plans to follow.

It would seem that two entities whose work appears so closely connected would work together to provide insight and expertise back and forth from the start of a project. Then teams could be constantly up to speed with the progress being made.

But that’s not what happens. The reality is that an architect’s team takes the developer’s vision, however truly developed it may or may not be, and huddles up to design a project to fit the budget set by said developer. Then the construction manager, who hasn’t given any input for the design, rushes to learn the plans, potentially missing key elements in the process, and takes those plans out to the subcontractor world for bids on the project.

Sometimes, all the time and money the developer has spent with accountants, plus the work architects have put into the designs, don’t match what the subs are willing to offer. In some cases, a developer can bite the bullet and pony up for the job, or subcontractors can lowball a project to get the work.

The result can all be a sub-par product, said Joshua DiGloria, Suffolk Construction’s senior project manager. In some cases, lawsuits ensue, with general contractors refusing to take responsibility for mistakes they see as design issues, and architects balking at costs they see incurred as a result of shoddy construction work.

“The subcontractors can find problems in the drawings, and there are changes that sometimes need to occur when [the general contractor doesn’t] have much involvement in the design,” DiGloria told Banker & Tradesman.

But a new way of doing things has found its way to the East Coast from California and other points west. It’s called integrated project delivery (IPD), and it’s usually instigated by the developer of a project.

Essentially, the developer will get an architect and a general contractor in the same room, wrestle them to the ground, and sit on their chests until they both sign the same contract stipulating that both parties are accountable for the success of the project.

As part of that contract, the designer, general contractor and some subcontractors all enter into a kind of profit-sharing pool that is meant to incentivize the team to stay on schedule and work together. As the team meets milestones during the planning and construction phases, the profits get doled out to all members. At the end of project, the team is expected to have stayed within the budget and on schedule. If at the end the project is over budget, it starts to eat into all team members’ profits.

“That way, everyone succeeds or doesn’t succeed together,” Suffolk’s DiGloria mused. The Boston-based firm is in the midst of building the $34.5 million Lawrence + Memorial Hospital Cancer Center in Waterford, Conn. Suffolk Construction and Boston architectural firm TRO Jung|Brannen entered into a binding IPD contract to design and construct the 47,000-square-foot cancer center – the first official IPD project in Connecticut, according to Suffolk.

In Massachusetts, Tocci Building Corp. is working on the first full IPD project, a 16,000-square-foot cancer treatment center addition to Marlborough Hospital.

“A key aspect of the IPD contract is that there is no litigation allowed, no changes allowed except for the scope of work needed or for unforeseen issues,” said John Tocci, president. “The team agrees to meet the project’s objectives, so you’re not guaranteeing specific plans, you’re guaranteeing an outcome together as a team. You take risk together on the whole project budget. Instead of being self-serving, the contract forces people to act as brothers and sisters delivering a project without blame.”