Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Alternative Construction Delivery Models For Prop G Program Projects Grossmont Healthcare District April 2009.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Alternative Construction Delivery Models For Prop G Program Projects Grossmont Healthcare District April 2009."— Presentation transcript:

1 Alternative Construction Delivery Models For Prop G Program Projects Grossmont Healthcare District April 2009

2 What is a Construction Delivery System?  A process designed to achieve the satisfactory completion of a construction project from conception to occupancy.  Construction delivery systems distribute risk amongst team members  Risk is any negative outcome affecting time, quality or cost. Risk has a value. The assignment of risk involves a substantial cost that is sometimes hard to quantify. 2

3 Examples of Construction Delivery Systems  Design/Bid/Build (the “traditional” system in the public sector)  Negotiated GMP (the “traditional” system in the private sector)  Design/Build (AB 405, proposed)  Design/Build (Lease/leaseback)  CM at-Risk (CM/GC)  CM—multiple prime 3

4 How Delivery Systems Differ 4

5 Venus and Mars? Or Vars? 5 Preconstruction Is decision intensive requiring study, analysis and often redesign to optimize value Construction Is production intensive, with defined needs for labor and materials and a predetermined sequence of activities

6 Project Definition  Projects that begin construction with excellent project definition cost 17% less than the average. Those that begin with poor project definition cost 20% more than the average.* * Edward C. Merrow, President and CEO, Independent Project Analysis, Inc. 6

7 Changes  The cost of changing something increases by a factor of about 10 each time the project changes its state. 7 Written requirements Sketch drawings Detailed design Construction drawings Construction

8 What is Design/Bid/Build (DBB)?  An system in which an owner retains a designer under a professional services contract to prepare complete construction documents and then bids the work, awarding a lump sum contract for construction of the facility to the low bidder  The “traditional” method in public construction 8 Owner Architect/Engineer Contractor

9 Design/Bid/Build – Issues 9 Design PD $ S S U U B B S S Owner Architect/Engineer General Contractor Construction Poor collaboration Contractor’s incentive is to maximize job profits through ambiguities, errors and changes. No incentive for repeat work. Takes too long Late news on cost

10 What is Design/Build (DB)?  A system in which an owner contracts with one entity to perform both design and construction under a single contract 10 Owner Architect Contractor Engineers Subcontractors Contractual Communication Design-builder

11 Design/Build 11 Design PD $ Owner Design/Build Contractor Construction Architect/ Engineer S S U U B B S S

12 Design/Build Risk Strategies 12 Design and Management PD $ S S U U B B S S Owner Construction Shop drawings $ $ GMP Construction Design/Build Contract

13 Design/Build Benefits  Single responsibility point for performance and project outcomes  Simplified administration of single contract for design and construction  Owner avoids most disputes between A/E and Contractor  Accelerated project delivery possible  Possible to accommodate changes by Owner/Code Officials on an actual-cost-basis 13

14 Design/Build Benefits  Early fixed cost or GMP (recommended) possible  Minimum exposure to unexpected change orders; Requires careful project definition and understanding by Owner of the project scope  Possible to select D/B proposals from multiple Design/Build teams  Maximum innovation possible for design & construction processes  Promotes non-adversarial team environment from Owner’s perspective 14

15 Design/Build Issues  More difficult for Owner to judge value-for-cost comparisons  Not currently permitted for district hospitals  Discretionary changes are very expensive  May limit competition  Potential for limited creativity & innovation if contractor and A/E do not collaborate successfully  Owner may lose some control over project outcome if project not carefully defined  Requires detailed review of Design/Build proposals and understanding of content of proposal  (Bridging approach is possible to minimize this concern) 15

16 What is Lease/Leaseback?  A system in which a third party (often a developer) leases the property from the district, constructs and finances the facility, and then leases it back to the owner  Design may be contracted directly by owner or through leasing entity  Authorized under Health and Safety Code for certain projects  Ownership of facility reverts to district at end of lease term 16

17 What is CM at-Risk?  Design is completed by an architect under a professional services agreement  A CM is chosen by a qualification-based selection process (Govt. Code 4525)  Subcontractors bid directly to the owner  After bid, subcontracts may be assigned to the CM, who guarantees the total construction cost 17

18 CM at-Risk 18 Owner Architect Contractor Engineers Subcontractors Contractual Communication CM firm

19 CM at-Risk Strategies 19 Bid Pack 1 (site, steel) Design P P Bid Pack 2 (shell and core, MEP) Bid Pack 3 (fit out) $ Shop Drawings $ $ GMP and start of construction T T R R A A D D E E S S Owner Architect/Engineer CM (Design Phase) CM (Design Phase) CM at-Risk

20 CM at-Risk Benefits  Reliable cost estimating early in design  CM/GC bears construction risks for cost if Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) required  True open-book cost accounting is possible  Owner expends only actual cost of project (recommended)  Shared savings can be used as incentive (not recommended) 20

21 CM at-Risk Benefits  Construction Manager input into design, including constructability, benefit/value based design process, building systems and scheduling input.  Accelerated project delivery/phased construction possible  Generally results in reduced change orders, reduced risk of claims/litigation  Construction Manager can self-perform trade work (generally not recommended) 21

22 CM at-Risk Issues  Best for complex/large projects  May reduce competition  Early GMP, prior to completion of A/E documents can result in scope gaps, lack of technical design review  Requires more involvement from Owner to make prompt decisions  Requires skill set for conceptual estimating, design management skills and experience in CM at-Risk to be successful 22

23 CM at-Risk Issues  Potential for conflict of interest; increases if self- performing construction  How are the trade contractors selected  Who owns the contingency?  How does the CM make its money?  Fee  Mark-ups?  Sub buy-out?  Shared savings? 23

24 What is Multiple-Prime CM?  Several specialty contractors are engaged to do specific portions of the work  Each contractor has a direct contract with the owner  Breakdown of work may be by phase, by trade, or both  Each prime contractor may also have subcontractors  Work is managed for the owner by a CM firm 24 Owner Architect Contractor Engineers Subcontractors Contractual Communication CM firm Contractor Subcontractors

25 Multiple Prime Contractors 25 Construction Design PD Construction $ $ $ T T R R A A D D E E S S Owner Architect/Engineer CM

26 What are the typical risks on a construction project? 26 Risk Conflict of Interest

27 Primary Components of Owner’s Risk  Budget  Cost  Schedule  Design deficiencies  Code compliance  Unforeseen conditions  “Force Majeure” 27

28 Budget  Initial budget must include all project costs including “soft” costs, appropriate contingencies, and an allowance for construction cost escalation (inflation) 28

29 Cost  Bid price may exceed budget  A project awarded within budget may encounter excessive change orders  Program changes (user’s)  Unforeseen conditions  Design errors or omissions 29

30 Schedule  Delays may come from many causes, both natural and man-made  Contract will define who assumes risk for various types of delay  Owner may incur additional collateral costs if occupancy is delayed 30

31 Design Deficiencies (“The Gap”)  Owner warrants that documents are complete and accurate (Spearin doctrine)  Contractor is entitled to rely on completeness and accuracy  Design professional is held to negligence standard  Owner cannot be unjustly enriched  AE standard of care not the same as OSHPD requirements 31

32 Code Compliance  Is related to design deficiencies  Responsibility generally follows same principles  Public agencies cannot shift this responsibility to contractor (PCC 1104)  Variable code interpretations between jurisdictions 32

33 Unforeseen Conditions  Accuracy of as-built drawings  Importance of adequate site investigation  Statutory restrictions on risk transfer 33

34 Force Majeure  Risks un-anticipatable by definition and beyond the control of either party  Includes:  “Acts of God”  War  Strikes  Unusually severe weather  Unavailability of materials 34

35 35  How do various project delivery systems allocate/mitigate risk?

36 Design/Bid/Build  Owner takes risk for:  Design deficiencies (“the Gap”)  Costs and delays for owner-initiated changes  Delays due to design schedule  Costs and delays due to unforeseen conditions  Costs and delays due to unexpected code interpretations  Contractor default 36

37 Design/Build  Owner is no longer responsible for design deficiencies, but still at risk for :  Quality of program information supplied  Effectiveness in defining performance requirements and quality standards  Delays and costs due to deficiencies or changes in above  Loss of control over project design 37

38 Design/Build – Common Misconceptions  May not be faster – a reasonable effort is needed for thorough project scoping in pre-design  Not all project problems go away  Elimination of design-related change orders is not the same as “No Change Orders”  The designer’s professional responsibility does not change 38

39 Bridging – A Variation of Design/Build  Owner hires “bridging architect” to prepare conceptual design documents and possibly to advise during balance of process  Design/Build entity completes design documents and constructs the project  Slower delivery, but greater control  Delays cost commitment 39

40 Bridging 40 Owner Design/Build entity Bridging architect Design team Contracts Communication Construction team

41 Bridging – Appropriate Uses  Owner requires formal, competitive selection of design-build entity  Owner desires assistance in planning, programming or other pre-design activities  Project is not well defined  Controlling risk is a high priority for owner 41

42 Lease/Leaseback  Risk of design deficiencies follows design contract (i.e., may be owner or leasing entity)  Most other construction risks move to leasing entity (cost, schedule, but probably not unforeseen conditions or force majeure)  Task and risk of proper program definition still goes to owner (similar to Design/Build) 42

43 CM at-Risk  Owner’s risks are:  Same as design-bid-build, but may share risks of design defects if CM provides preconstruction services  May share some risk through contingency  May require increased administrative cost to track project billings & payments 43

44 Multiple-Prime CM  Owner’s risk is similar to Design/Bid/Build, but may increase due to multiple direct contracts  May require increased administrative cost to track project billings & payments  Owner is at risk for CM’s ability to coordinate various contractor’s work 44

45 Selecting a Project Delivery System 45 Design Construction Acoustical ceilings Architectural woodwork Block and brick Building insulation Carpeting Casework Cleaning Clearing & stripping Compressors and fan units Control wiring Demolition Doors and frames Drywall Ductwork Electrical Elevators Erosion control Fencing Fire protection Fire stopping Flagpoles Flashing & sheet metal Flooring Food service Glass & Glazing Grading & excavation Hardware Insulation Landscaping and Planning Lockers Mechanical Metal fabrications Metal wall & roofing panels Millwork Moisture protection Mold Control Network wiring Ornamental Iron Painting Paving Plumbing Pools and fountains RO water Roof and site drainage Roof hatches Roofing Rough framing Sealants & caulking Security systems Signage Site sprinklers Skylights Soil treatment Striping Structural steel Stucco Termite control Tile Toilet compartment & accessories Vacuum systems Wall covering Window covering Window wall Window, Glass & glazing Architect of record Design architect Mechanical engineers Structural engineer Electrical engineer Sanitary engineer Civil engineer Food service consultant Audio Visual consultant Telecommunications consultant Graphics and signage consultant Network cabling consultant Acoustical consultant Hardware consultant Lighting consultant Testing and Inspection Code consultant Life Safety consultant Concrete Supply Counter tops Concrete reinforcement Building specialties Concrete formwork

46 What drives selection of the delivery process?  Project characteristics  Client goals/objectives  Organizational constraints  Political concerns  Process flexibility 46

47 Sources of Further Information  Design-Build Institution of America:   Guidelines published by California Healthcare Foundation: 


Download ppt "Alternative Construction Delivery Models For Prop G Program Projects Grossmont Healthcare District April 2009."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google