2Organization of Primary Entities Traditional Design/Bid BuildOrganizationRisk DeliveryOrganizationPricing Competition
3Delivery Method Schedule Comparison Design/Bid/Build ApproachPlanningDesignBidConstructionJanFebMarAprMayJunJulySepOctNovDecFirm Price & Schedule EstablishedConstruction Risk ApproachPlanningDesignBid Trade PackagesTime Saving – as much as 50%ConstructionJanFebMarAprMayJunJulySepOctNovDecFirm Price & Schedule Established
4Design/Bid/Build vs. CM @ Risk - Attributes Construction Manager (CM) part of selected project teamConstruction Manager is at Risk to perform the project within the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) CM’s Cost Accounting is OPEN BOOK for Owner & Architect.Industry consensus is the quality level of workmanship is higherTrade Contractors are pre-qualified and low bid competition takes place at Trade Contractor levelNo need for Separate Cost Estimator as CM provides this as part of preconstruction services (This pricing is also based upon real-world trade contractor input versus standard cost analysis which is typically not suited for the specific project)GMP determined at early stage of Construction Document Completion (Reduces architectural fees resulting from drawing rework and lessens impact to overall project schedule)Project can be fast tracked (see following slide) to minimize overall project durationConstruction Manager reviews Construction Documents for errors and omissions such that cost for necessary work is included in the GMP as the documents are being completedReduces the risk of claims and change ordersDesign/Bid/BuildTraditional contract procurement methodCan work well with an excellent set of construction documents and experienced Owner, and even better with pre-qualification of the general contractors and major scope trade contractorsCompetition of general contractors based upon “completed” construction documentsFirm price determined at selection of general contractorOwner retains selection leverage until “complete and enforceable” Contract Documents are completedOwner can “control” the general contractor’s quality and action through a highly enforceable contract
5Design/Bid/Build vs. CM @ Risk - Challenges Potential for change orders is maximized due to inevitable errors and omissions in the Contract Documents (drawings) (11% to 15% typical on state D/B/B projects)Document rework typically necessary to bring project within budgetWithout prequalification – risk of unqualified general contractor providing low bid. (potential for schedule over-runs or default – State D/B/B projects average 3 to 6 month schedule over original durationTrade contractors selected on bid day based upon low bid price ONLY. Typically leads to forced selection of at least several unqualified trade contractors and unforeseen costs to general contractorAdversarial relationship typically develops between general contractor, architect and Owner regarding change orders and incomplete Construction DocumentsLow price at bid day may not be low price and will certainly not be final costQuality is typically lower than other delivery methodsAssumes that architects, engineers and cost consultants have the best knowledge of construction technology and cost effective construction methods. Yet this is not true.RiskOwner will most likely pay a little more for the initial cost of construction management services when compared to a low bid scenario (However typically these additional costs are recouped through change orders)To obtain the best pricing, the Owner and/or architect must ensure that Construction Manager is providing a competitively bid atmosphere for the trade contract competitionOwner must be comfortable with a “Team” procurement approach
6Findings from the Construction Industry Institute Design/Bid/Build systems have the greatest design and construction schedule growth.Any Design/Bid/Build project has a 50% likelihood of realizing cost growth between 2% and 11%0% and 8% cost growth for Risk ProjectsNearly half of all Design/Bid/Build projects experience cost growth of greater than 5%Survey and analysis proved that Design/Bid/Build provided the lowest quality level.
7Industry Information on CM @ Risk Construction Management becomes “mainstream” in ENR’s (Engineering News Record) assessment of top design-build, Construction Management firmsConstruction and Program Management have made a strong move into the construction industry’s mainstream in the last year, reports Engineering News-Record in its annual compilation of top CM, PM and design-build firms. The “management precepts underlying CM and Program Management have become pervasive in the industry,” ENR said in its June 14 issue. “As construction firms became more sophisticated and clients increasingly looked outside their own staffs to plan and oversee large construction programs, the concept of program management took off.”CMs are also being involved earlier in projects. Joseph Seibold, vice president of construction management for CMAA member Carter & Burgess, is quoted in the magazine saying “Once, owners thought that they needed a CM firm but waited until the contracting phase to hire one. This prevented the CM from helping oversee planning and design.”A large part of the momentum behind Program Management is coming from school systems that have received large bond issue revenues and are pressed to spend the money wisely. “I continue to be impressed by the level of confidence the public has in passing these bond issues,” says James Moynihan, CEO of Heery International, another CMAA member.Seibold notes, though, that “public agencies generally aren’t staffed to handle a sudden surge in capital spending authorizations,” and this is another reason why Construction and Program Management have come so strongly to the forefront of the industry recently.