CMAR Survey
Text Comments
II. A/E and CM in Pre-construction
1. This also is how we do it. Theory tells us that much of the added value in CMAR is the contractor’s input during pre-construction phase. The earlier he is hired, the more useful his input is and the more impact it can have without changing already completed work.
2. Why bother with CMAR if they are not involved form the very beginning?
3. The intensity of CM involvement does not necessarily need to by high in the early stages, however, it is extremely important that the CM be involved to some extent at the start of schematics. This is when expectations are formulated and critical decisions are made. Project decisions start with a view of the “forest” and work their way to the “trees”, and the CM can provide valuable insight during those “forest” decisions. As the design advances through schematics, design development, and construction documents, it becomes increasing more difficult and eventually not practical to change direction as a result of critical information provided by a CM whose preconstruction services began in some later stage in design.
4. Prefer CMR hire at Programming/ Conceptual Design Phase (this is before 10%/ Schematics) Attending Programming meetings with the users helps CMAR understand owner’s needs better.
5. The earlier a CM is hired the better.
6. We prefer the CMAR to be brought on at the same time as the design professional. We have formal partnering sessions and create the goals of the project together. Some decisions are made jointly. We have even co-located with our contractor partner so that decisions are made side-by-side. (CMAR moved into DP’s office for the design phase before moving into the on-site construction trailer for the construction phase.
7. It pays to partner the 2 firms after being indepently selected to gain concensus and achieve a unified team that’s a win-win-win for A/E/Contractor/Owner.
8. Constructability issues start coming up later in the design where the comments would be more beneficial early on before the design has progressed to far
9. A delay in hiring a CM following completion of the Schematic Documents (25-30% of the Design Phase) results in ever diminishing value to the Owner due to limitations on their effectiveness.
10. The contractor involvement early is always positive on the constructability aspects. The ability to accurately cost estimate should be enhanced with a contractor, but we have had difficulty getting accurate costs until the documents are complete. Also the ability to make changes suggested by the CMR are more difficult (and incur A/E cost) the later in the design process
11. The benefit of CMAR participation is obliterated if the CMAR is not on board during design.
12. The CM and Key subs should be hired as early as possible in the project.
13. The A/E without input from both the prime contractor and the larger subcontractors can over design, under design, not use economical materials, non state of the art material, materials that are not available, or processes that don’t take into account what the available work force can perform.
14. The soon the team is in place the better the result
15. In my experience, the CM is anxious to prove their worth to the Owner right from the outset, which usually means “value engineering the design”. The CM is also interested in minimizing the “risk” aspect of CMAR and broadening the buffer between their GMP and what they believe will be the actual cost. Since this almost always means decreasing the cost of the project, the scope and quality of the design are directly affected, usually negatively. To keep cost, scope and quality in equilibrium, it is imperative that value engineering occur as early in the design process as possible. Engaging the CM at the outset promotes a better working dialogue between the A/E and the CM, and the design stands a much better chance of proceeding with scope and quality in better alignment with cost. The later the CM is engaged in the process, the more likely “value engineering” will become an exercise in reducing cost without much regard for overall design impact or material performance, like making Monterrey into Swiss Cheese.
16. Our project is proceeding nicely, but I suspect that our project would have been proceeded even better if the CM was onboard before the plans were 95% complete.
17. The value of bringing a CM on early is lost when design (any amount) is completed without input from the CM. The ability to impact the project happens in the first schematic designs of the project, and decreases as design progresses.
18. Once you get to 65% design, I believe you might as well bid the documents competitively
19. The University of [state] System which manages our campus CIP projects requires a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) be provided for Board of Regents approval at the 100% DD phase. The longer it takes to hire the CMR, the more negative the impact on the project scope and budget.
20. The benefit of the CM process is the ability to gain cost, schedule and constructability input from the constructor who will eventually do the work. During or at the end of Schematic Design is the ideal time to bring the constructor onto the team. This is the time when their input has the greatest positive benefit to the process. All major design and system decisions should be made by the end of the DD phase. Schedule decisions related to fast track packages must be made during DDs. As a result, significant input delayed until the CD phase has the greatest potential to add cost to the design team and to negatively impact the project schedule. Additionally, the process of getting a GMP will require considerable project knowledge by the constructor. They naturally tend to push the actual GMP setting as late in the process as possible, often offering mini-GMPs for early packages while the later packages are being developed. Waiting until CD phase to bring on a constructor is not likely to result in an early GMP and the entire team will have lost most or all of the schedule and constructability benefits. If a constructor has not been brought onto the team by the start of CDs, I would recommend serious consideration toward simply bidding the project.
21. Success with constructability reviews during pre-construction has varied, and A/E questions have been fairly limited. Most discussions are cost related. These continue throughout the pre-construction phase, and although many ideas are generated and incorporated, the GMP often comes in higher than the budget, and more serious scope reductions are considered.
22. This can play a major role in costs
23. If the CM is hired after 95% CD docs the damage is already done. The Owner has been sold a design concept, and program that they may not be able to afford and then the CMAR comes in and puts a price to what is planned and looks like the bad guy because the design now gets cut to fit the budget vs. the design being tailored to meet the budget.
III Subs in preconstruction
1. CM specialties experience should not be expected to be as extensive and current as subcontractors, since it is not their core business. Subcontractors perform at-risk for these specialty services every day. It is their core business. They are in a much stronger position to provide current, accurate insight and information related to their specialties. Front-end project decisions are extremely important and the Owner should have the benefit of relevant information coming from the best source – the subcontractor.
2. Our experience is that very, very few CMAR’s have more than broad trade experience and almost none have sufficient MPE [mechanical, plumbing, electrical] or other specialty sub trade experience. Consequently, most can offer some broad estimating, and generalized knowledge of systems or MPE designs, but getting into details is nearly a worthless exercise with them.
No subcontractor will provide preconstruction services at no cost unless the CM has indicated a commitment to use that subcontractor for construction. Subcontractors are in business to provide and install their respective specialty systems, not provide consulting services. It is unethical to expect them or anyone to perform such a time-intensive service without compensation, then award the installation to a low bid competitor who would not have been capable of providing the same preconstruction benefit to the Owner.
This may be more a reflection of the construction climate now, but very few specialty contractors have the time to do a really good estimate or quality or design review of pre-construction work. They’re just too busy. If they do, it’s as a favor to a general contractor who works with them a great deal, but even so, the sub’s heart and best people typically don’t have the time, even with the agreement that “if you help me with this, I promise that you’ll have the chance to price the work later (under a competitive pricing offering…..). Most would be willing to help if you would either hire them early or guarantee that they’ll be hired later. I think that a better alternate question to owners might be, would you be willing to pay some small amount to have a specialty contractor review the documents for design, quality control and provide a reasonably accurate estimate? I think that we’d seriously consider it, and probably either make sure that the CMAR does this or slightly reduce the CMAR’s pre-construction phase fee and agree to pay these fees ourselves directly.
C. Qualifications then Negotiations.
1. “ that’s how we show legislators we are getting the best prices – i.e., it is all bid.”
2. This is not unlike the process used in hiring CM’s. A qualifier would be needed defining “conditions” for limiting a project’s “preconstruction” subcontractors to only those whose preconstruction input is considered to be essential to the successful outcome of the project and benefit to the Owner. The remaining subcontractors should be appropriately competitively bid.
3. Our issue is common: I don’t have a lot of problem hiring subs early. In fact, we’ll consider it now for our projects where the CMAR can show us some substantial advantage to doing so. That may be pricing, may be design assistance on some unusual product or assembly, or even as part of an early purchase package, like steel frame including erection. Our concern is basic: how does the CMAR balance making sure that he/we are still going to make our budget/GMP if he locks someone in early? How good is his estimate for this early award portion? How good is the rest of it? If he makes this early selection and ties it up with a set budget to assure that he’s on track with the balance of the pricing, how can I be assured that quality/quantity/etc., doesn’t have to be cut later because the already selected sub comes in at a higher price than budgeted. We do this with fingers crossed and teeth gritted…..
III D. None
III E. Work to remove prohibitions
1. I’m comfortable with either, but public work is still based more or less on having some pricing competition unless it’s specifically prohibited by statute, as ours is for CMAR selection.
2. We have none in our statutes.
3. Again, our statute now requires that there are only 2 ways to select subs: qualifications only or qualifications then followed by pricing. The contractor cannot select by price alone. In fact, statute requires that the contractor provide his sub-contractor pre-qualifying program during the contractor’s own selection process and then he is required to use that program for his final selection, or one provided by the owner!
4. A qualifier would be needed defining “conditions” for limiting a project’s “preconstruction” subcontractors to only those whose preconstruction input is considered to be essential to the successful outcome of the project and benefit to the Owner. The remaining subcontractors should be appropriately competitively bid.
III General Comments on Preconstruction Services of Subs
1. Need to bring the “major” subs on board early in the design process. Usually, “major” means the HVAC, electrical, maybe plumbing, maybe dirtwork sub. Others depend on nature of the job i.e. if glass was a big part of the job, then bringing the glazing contractor on board would be prudent.
2. Dependent upon the project’s complexity.
3. A major issue with question D above is that the subcontractors involved in the design process have a better understanding of the intent and requirements of the design and subsequently bid these into the project, where as another subcontractor may not include similar work scope.
4. We use a process that allows for major subcontractor (MEPF) to be part of the pre-construction effort on a qualification basis, but they must still negotiate their pricing at the point the GMP is established.
5. These services are really important if the contractor wants to have input in the design. More issues could be resolved before the final documents are published if the contractor is on board and actively participating with the design.
6. The sooner you get subcontractors engaged, the better the project. CM’s have little or nothing to offer a customer when it comes to specialty contracting. If they haven’t stolen a subs employees to do their budgets, they usually come to a sub for assistance on pre-con anyway.
7. For the process to work the most efficiently and for all the benefits to be realized the major subcontractors need to be involved from the beginning. All to often the subcontractors are solicited for no reimbursement and if they are not sufficiently compensated on that project or another project they will not participate again in the process with the GC.
8. In my opinion, a combination of C and D can sometimes be valuable. If the subcontractor who provided the preconstruction services is required to bid the work, it keeps them leaner and more precise. The caveat - and this could only work on private projects – is that the contract does not necessarily need to go to the lowest bidder. If the preconstruction sub is not the lowest bidder, but in reasonable agreement with the other bidders, then the CM can, if they choose, award the contract to them. The subcontractor then has a vested interest in the project and often provides better preconstruction services. Cost estimates from subs are “real” early on. This arrangement basically contractualizes option “B”, the process that the CM invariably utilizes anyway, even if the sub is not apparent to the Owner or A/E (option “A”).
9. All of the subcontractors for this project were selected after the construction documents were 100% complete
10. Mechanical, Electrical and Fire sprinkler principally. Other subs can typically be represented by the general
11. We follow the process in C. above.
12. My answers were made thinking in terms of MEP subs on highly sophisticated projects, like labs and hospitals, where the value of the MEP systems often exceeds 40 – 45% of the total construction cost. Negotiating the MEP takes away some of the potential cost saving opportunities to the owner. As the value of the trade’s work goes down, the justification for negotiation vs bidding will change. I would promote eliminating restrictions on negotiated arrangements in order to give owners the greatest opportunity for selecting the correct construction format for the specific project and the specific time. The responses will be somewhat dependent on the local market, the scale of the project, the work load in the marketplace and availability of trades at the time of proposed construction, etc.
13. This is a difficult situation. Some of the biggest budget misses have been on the major trades, and it may be beneficial to have more information from sub-contractors; however, I have tow concerns. One is that the local sub-contractor community may not necessarily have the relevant experience to evaluate a project during the design phase and be able to price what is not yet documented. Secondly, bidding the sub-contractors is a way to answer to the governing board that we have achieved fair pricing.
14. CMs often use subcontractors for budget pricing and then let bids to unqualified subcontractors based solely on the cheapest price.
1. When fee is made a part of the selection process, especially in the public sector, it too often becomes the decision driver regardless of the weighting. For years the selection of architects has been qualifications based followed by fee negotiations or with a previously set fee. There has been no substantial variance in the percentage fee. A fair and reasonable percentage fee is typically within the range of expectation of the knowledgeable Owner, and the difference between a fair and reasonable fee and a competitively bid low fee is minimal compared to the potential added risk of not providing a fair and reasonable fee for services.
2. Although we selected the CM on qualifications only, I would have preferred to compare the fee/general conditions proposals of the top firms in making our selection.
3. Comments CMR selection _Quals only, similar to A/E’s. They need to be on board before the project is well defined. The fees should be negotiated after selection, and if the fees not agreeable, the 2nd place CMR could come to the table.
4. I’d also support a two step system- open RFP for CMAR, selection of short list of equal, qualified firms, then closed envelope proposals for fee, maybe overhead and general conditions if those can be quantified early.
V. Teamwork
A. Teamwork is better on governmenatal CMAR than DBB
1. Successful projects are ultimately the result of the efforts of a competent, cohesive team working toward the common goal in achieving the vision of the government Owner. The continuing rise of CMR projects and well-documented failures of design-bid-build projects on government projects are testament to the effectiveness of teamwork using CMR
2. We generally get decent teamwork during pre-construction phase, but everyone has to understand that regardless of what the theory is, once we enter into a contract that has any kind of fixed or set costs element, the contractor’s only motive is to meet his schedule and budget. There is more- or sometimes slightly less- reversion to an adversarial relationship at this point. You see it almost become manic- depression: the contractor is trying to be helpful, cooperative all the while working really hard to protect his profit and move the project along.
B. Teamwork Improves with CMAR experience.
Text Comments
CMR is a delivery method that is more compatible with construction firms that have done primarily negotiated and design-build work. Their mindset is to provide quality and maintain reputation in order to be selected on future work. Firms that do primarily traditional design-bid-build work are different. Their mindset is to win the job with the lowest price and manage close to their margins, through strict interpretation of the contract and construction documents. Teamwork improves with a firm experienced in CMR and other negotiated deliveries, rather than experienced in design-bid-build.
It’s probably a case of diminishing returns. Once you’ve been able to make a transition (if you can) from hard bid mentality and adversarial stances to theoretical partnering and cooperation, and gain the experience of a couple of projects, teamwork then will be about as good as it’s going to get. There probably won’t be much more significant improvement no matter how many more projects we do. There will be an occasional new trick now and then that we learn that will help.
C. Had Partnering?
No text comments.
It depends on the objectives, the facilitator, and the process utilized.
E. No text Comments
F. Do you believe formal partnering for your later CMR projects, after the first two, would have been helpful?
1. It’s a bit like saying that every time your kid wants to make a new friend, you’re going to run an afternoon partnering session. At some point, we’re all adults and need to figure out how to get along with needing to sit in a room and sing Kumbaya
2. Either a person or organization is of the mindset to trust and work in a CMAR environment or not. If they are not, no amount of partnering will make it a success.
The formal discussions of goals, aspirations, etc. to me gets tedious and repetitive. I’ll usually invite the CMAR to our early A/E- owner start up meetings and programming sessions to meet everyone, and then pull everyone aside during a break or afterwards for a quick discussion, hi-howdy, etc.
G. Do you feel meeting/socialization of all major project participants early in the project – a meeting/socialization less formal partnering but more than routine progress meeting, for example, a picnic or catered lunch, is a benefit to the project?
1. We have had a slow start on effective teamwork on our one project. All parties want to be cooperative, but there seems to be some uncertainty on how it is implemented. This is one area where a lessons -learned de-briefing after the project will be helpful for all.
2. All too often partnering meetings are not attended by all that should be there and many that do attend are there because they have to. It seems to be one of those buzz words that upper management likes to here but don’t really expect there people to follow. This is true of the Owners, GCs and Subs. If you hold the meeting at the end of the budget process it is too late to do any real good. The relationships have to be established in the beginning to have their fullest effect.
3. My limited experience tells me that anything/everything that can be done to facilitate a spirit of teamwork/cooperation is probably worth the time/effort/expense
4. Partnering is only as good as the commitment to open and honest communications that all parties are willing to make. The process is no substitute for integrity on the part of all parties.
5. The formal ‘partnering’ sessions are pretty useless. Having a big team meeting with all involved about the specifics of the project are very useful. Get to work and don’t worry about formalness or outsiders. Learn to work with the team you got.
6.Don’t feel Partnering brings that much value to the project.
7. Haven't done this and don't understand value of it.
8. Teamwork is essential to the true success of the project. Formal partnering, social events, etc. are all tools to make sure that everyone understands one another’s goals and expectations. However, they are not guarantees of success. A negative attitude by any one of the key participants, a lack of respect for the priorities or abilities of other participants, a tendency to overcharge for changes, etc. can eliminate all of the attempts at team building.
9. Partnering? In my experience a good attitude towards teamwork and partnering are corporate, as well as personal, qualities that the team brings to the table. A one day session does not change someone if they are not inclined to already think this way.
VII. Areas of Tension.
A. Tension between the A/E and the CM:
1. More often, we hear that the architect’s design is over the top and it’s the cause that the contractor can’t make the budget. We hear the same story over and over again about how on the last job, the architect wanted some really fancy, expensive glass and the contractor suggested something a lot cheaper that helped make budget. There’s never much of a discussion about why that original glass was selected and it never occurs or is never stated by the contractors that maybe there was a legitimate reason for the glass selection and it wasn’t just because it looked cool in the design.
B. Design related tension
1. Two answers on both A and B above because all three parties need to be strong participants in the decision making process. Ultimately the AE gets its power from the Owner.
1. My experience is that GMP problems are too often traceable back to the formation of the original program budget, before the CMR (and often before even the architect) get involved. This is the stage where professional estimators should be employed.
2. The owner or for the A/E. We often hire a third party estimator to further insure that cost estimates are accurate.
3. For me, it’s really all of the above. We require an estimator, either our own independent estimator or more likely, an estimator working for the design team. Yes, the estimate is generally in conflict with the contractor’s and nearly 100% of the time is less than the contractor’s, it really adds tension and complexity to the situation, it makes it neither better nor worse, but it’s part of the due diligence that an owner must provide to assure that the pricing and product being proposed protects the taxpayers. We’re just not anywhere near the point that we can just tell the contractors, “Yeh, I trust you. Just send the final price in and I’ll sign it without looking.” Even with an open book requirement for all pricing, we know that there are all kinds of shenanigans going on with pricing.
D. A/E feels constrained
1. DBB positions the architect as the sole provider to the Owner during the design phase. It is human nature that any additional expert involvement (CMR, cost estimating, special interest, etc.) would cause the architect to feel constrained.
E. Force A/E and CM's estimate to reconcile
1. Reconciliation of the estimates is time consuming but a good idea. The costs may not match but the reasons for the differences need to be understood. Ultimately the constructor has the risk and his numbers will prevail.
It is our contract as well as policy. We feel that we need to make sure that we’re all in agreement at certain milestones about where we are on pricing. We may allow a couple of percent variance, but we’re not going to go as far as 10% or 15% at any stage. Here’s our requirement: “At Schematic Design Phase, the difference between the Architect’s and Contractor’s estimate shall be five percent (5%) or less. At Design Development, this difference shall be two and one-half percent (2½%) or less. At Construction Documents/Guaranteed Maximum Price Phase, the Architect and Contractor shall reconcile and agree with the Estimate of Construction Costs or Guaranteed Maximum Price as developed by the Contractor, within the amount of the Owner's Project Construction Budget (Construction Contract Award Price).”
F. Design Changes and A/E fees
1. If the constructor were brought on late and the changes were significant, AE fees would become an issue. Also lots more meetings during design phases, lots of extra work doing redesign or finding alternatives each time the cost estimate comes in too high, etc…...
G. Fewer Changes in CMAR
1. Score depends on when the CMAR and subcontractors are involved in the design stages
2, I don’t think that we’ve seen an appreciable change in the E and O rate for architects between DBB and CMAR. In theory, as you said, the CMAR’s review should catch a number of things, but we just aren’t seeing that level of review from most CMAR’s. Where we use their reviews is in whether we accept paying them to make the correction of the E and O situation, where we are now telling them that they were involved from the beginning, that they should have caught the error- especially a really obvious situation- during their contract required reviews and they have to figure out how to cover it since we are not going to pay for it.
H. Frequency of Meetings
1.This really depends on the size and complexity of the project.
2. Frequency will depend on the scale and schedule of the project / process
3. Trust doesn’t have a lot to do with the number of meetings- there’s always something that we need to meet about, discuss and decide on. Most of these are between the architect and CMAR, generally with the owner’s rep involved. We may have a couple of intermediate meetings when users may be invited, but generally it’s just for major milestone reviews.
General Comments on Pre-construction
Text Comments
CM’s are only starting to understand and bring value to this phase. Accurate IN-HOUSE estimating is critical, as is independent confirming estimates. The challenge with CMAR is believing you are getting a fair price (the auto mechanic syndrome), so anything that helps the situation is a positive. The best firms bring value by doing REAL constructability reviews, helping solve budget problems with creative solutions, taking responsibility for their document review efforts (not allowing sub change orders based on document “interpretations”) and taking the time to understand and buy into design concepts.
Definitely feel the Architect can get more “design” with DBB. In CMR, if contractor doesn’t recognize it, then it “must be too expensive.”
We have had special circumstances where the A/E’s cost estimator was inaccurate and we were unable to reconcile. The major cause seems to be a volatile market in [City] that both the estimator and the CMR were unable to predict and we are over budget at the moment.
This is a very crucial phase it will become very evident immediately if the team is going to work together and build a mutually beneficial project for all involved.
Communication and commitment to teamwork
The most important goal, I believe, in the pre-construction phase of the project is for the design to realize its maximum scope and quality for the projected cost. For this to happen, the CM must be involved right at the outset of the project with the design developing in tandem with cost, schedule, and constructability issues. The later the CM gets involved, the more likely the design ends up being a process of truncation instead of refinement. The fact that some architects might feel they have more aesthetic opportunity in the traditional DBB only means they prefer to design with wishful thinking in a vacuum outside of reality. There is simply no way to know all the cost and constructability implications of design decisions, or be able to accommodate, in the design, changes in construction labor and material markets. If the Owner has an expansive budget, then retaining an architect with an ivory tower can produce notable projects, but most obviously do not. The only way to apply realistic cost and constructability data is to have direct input from people knowledgeable in construction. Even the critical structural design of the project involves specialized sub-trades that need to be part of a feedback loop that informs the architectural design. Knowing the lead times of steel at a particular time of year, for example, can have a profound impact on design decisions. Reaching the point of greatest value is unavoidably a process of tension, since all the variables are interdependent. When the architect designs outside standard and predictable construction techniques, this exposes the CMR to greater risk. Conversely, the CMR’s desire to limit risk exposure and lower cost puts constraints on the designer. Finding the equilibrium of these opposing “tensions” is what produces the greatest value for the owner. But that’s a simple statement.. The complicated problem is how the tension is resolved. Even if the A/E and CM work closely to find a balance between the cost and design, the CM is invariably seen by the owner as the real guide through this thicket. Many CMs promote and foster this image. Since they have the best handle on cost, their contribution is easily quantified, and cost savings are usually credited to their influence. However, I would venture to say that in my experience there is usually a greater understanding and appreciation of cost, once stated, by an A/E then there is design by a CM. While the Owner has a right to know cost implications, too much involvement of the owner in the “value engineering” process invariably tilts decisions toward the judgment of the CM, who may have taken little time to understand the design beyond its constructability. The owner tends to assume that they will end up with the design and performance they want regardless of material substitutions, specification revisions, and scope reduction by the CM. While the architect is in a better position to know the overall impact of cost on design, the owner invariably doesn’t see it that way. The person controlling the money controls the job, and that would be the CM. [Perkins comment – that would be the owner??] I wish I could say that the A/E and CM work things out with harmony and accord, but resolution of tension is typically by A/E abdication and not CM compromise. I was tempted to check the box in question 7b re. A/E & CM tensions that “This is a likely problem, but the team usually sorts it out (i.e., A/E and contractor generally handle without too much owner involvement)”, but that would only have been to save face on behalf of A/Es. The truth is that the tension is a problem. The problem with an independent estimator hired by the owner or A/E is that the direct input from subcontractors is almost always a better indicator of actual cost. The independent estimate is useful to highlight areas of discrepancy, where ambiguities in the design need to be clarified. Theoretically, the independent estimate should provide the A/E with some leverage and greater influence in making design/cost decisions. The weight of real cost data, however, has more momentum and carrying power. The fact that the CM may actually be swaging a number for a particular sub-trade is irrelevant. This is because the perception is that they did, or can, always back up their estimate with a quick phone call to supplier X. The independent estimator has, ultimately, only their opinion.
Again, team building is critical to making any process work. Mutual respect among all team members is critical to success in any project. The owner cannot be everywhere all the time and must rely on each member of the team to do what is best for the project. This is only possible if some form of team building is achieved whether through a formal process of partnering or through the course of working together and building trust during the course of the design.
It is difficult to get the construction subs involved in the process because they are building other job while the A/E designs. Don’t expect the subs to provide lots of services during design. The A/E needs to stand strong on the design as thing evolve or the design could change radically every time an outsider looks at the project. Keep the General and subs at the table to hear what is going on as much as possible
Depending on the type of the project the team will have to present at all meetings.
VIII. Construction phase
A. More cooperative in CMAR.
They’re very cooperative as long as it doesn’t hit their bottom line; then, they become less cooperative going to the extreme of becoming a D-B-B situation that we’ve faced in one particularly poor CMAR situation.
B. Superintendent
This is equally true for all parties- the traits that served us best and enabled us to survive in a D-B-B environment do not serve us as well, or at all, in CMAR. Project managers, owners, architects all need a different approach and personality. Some people can make that transition, but many can’t from all areas. It’s almost like you have to raise and train them from youth on how to approach a project done using APDM (Alternative Project Delivery Methods).
C. Qualifications of CM staff
If it’s cost reimbursable, they can afford to give you the best that you’re willing to pay for, and which one of us really wants to be accused of only willing to pay for second rate or unexperienced personnel on a job. If the work is obtained through price competition, then we face this argument- they can’t afford to place their best staff on a project when they have to look after every penny to be selected to begin with.
In my experience, CMs who come from a GC background tend to function more like GCs than CMs. This holds true for the site superintendents. CMs with a degreed background perform more like a CM. GCs hold all of their cards close to their chest, with virtually no cost disclosure or honest project appraisals. Superintendents with GC backgrounds tend to view their role as working only for the CM. Degreed background supers tend to relate with the owner and A/E on a higher level of parity with the CM, recognizing their larger responsibility to the success of the project as a whole.
VIII D. Owner's manager on site
Our contracts are a fixed cost/GMP and we don’t need to be there to watch each nail be hammered in. We’re there because we are the team coach, because we represent our users, because we alone can bring the owner’s view and experience of what is important on a project and what we need as an end result. But that doesn’t require a daily presence, even during construction.
I don’t need to be there daily, but I am available daily as needed to meet the exact needs that you list and that I am the reason for in my organization.
VIII F Smoothest if owner not there.
Somewhat dependent on the scale of the project, the AE’s CA involvement, etc. It is always good to have a knowledgeable owner throughout the entire duration.
VIII G and H Responsiblity for QA and QC
Text Comments
In general QC is improved on CMAR projects since you have selected on quals. You mentioned owner’s roles, it is CRITICAL that the owner have a strong, knowledgeable presence. The A/E loses some of the traditional power found in DBB projects and by default, the Owner has to assume the leadership role in resolving conflicts.
I’m not sure this question was written quite right. It is somewhat confusing
All of the above have the responsibility of QA/QC including the GC and Subcontractor. It should be more of a team effort and be done as the project progresses not at the end. As far as the owners despicability it depends on how sophisticated and how involved they are as to how his portion is accomplished.
VIII I
Really tough, loaded question. While it’s “my money” that the contractor has in his contingency, he’s jealously guarding its use to assure that he doesn’t run over budget. You always can increase the contingency ahead of time with the agreement to use it to cover owner change orders. Sometimes, as you get closer to the end of the job and the contingency is in really good shape since the contractor over estimated it to begin with, we all agree to allow some of it to be used for A/E change orders since I would be getting it back shortly anyway.
VIII J
Fee reduction not likely, particularly in the current overheated market. More likely, he’s willing to work hard, cooperate, be seen as a team player, maybe not bend over backwards but at least lean backwards, to help out during a job. I’ve been told and believe that architects worry first about aesthetics then profit; for contractors, it’s the reverse. Generally, you’re negotiating the fee well in advance of the project completing- it should be before it even starts!- so why would a contractor reduce his fee, when he has nearly all of the performance that you’ll gauge him on yet to go?
They’re pretty much unwilling now- “gauge me on what I do, not what you pay me”
It will be seen how the minor costs are dealt with. In general change orders are pain, people will eat minor costs. If the contractor gets paid for every change than what is the point of GMP pricing. It would really be Guaranteed Minimum Price. That is not the concept. The contractor needs to take some risk and participate in the design because the have already got the job long in advance by qualifications instead of hard dollar.
Depends upon the circumstances and where in the project he is. He’s not “eating it”- he’s pounding it back to a subcontractor or taking it from his allowance (“my money”). It will never get as far as impacting the fee unless there’s been a serious mishandling of the project on the part of the contractor. GMP = guaranteed maximum profit.
VIII K Subs eat minor cost increases.
The subs are even one step farther away from the owner and future selection on merit or cost. More often, the general contractor “shoves” it downhill to the subcontractor. Most will concede a small amount of change, either vs. a small contingency that they have to protect themselves, or as a favor to the general contractor, who the sub wants more future work from. Since most sub work is done on a competitive bid basis, they still see CMAR as hard bid and are unwilling to absorb a lot of any additional cost. Margins and profits are much higher now in our local market, so there may be a bit more accommodation occurring now than it will in a tighter economy.
VIII Fast track
We probably don’t do it as much as we could and it’s one of the best tools in answer to soaring inflation rates. It’s probably one of the top advantages with CMAR and where owners need fast deadlines, it’s the right answer and right reason for CMAR.
It’s really not that material to us, other than it makes assuring that the contractor is providing competitive pricing much more difficult. I’d say that nearly all general contractors continue to be brokers, doing very little to none of the work themselves. Most just don’t want to carry the risk and overhead, and most can always find a subcontractor able or willing to do the work for less money. Some contractors keep a series of smaller crews and trades on when they do a lot of TI type work because they can keep them busy on smaller projects and keep a certain group of their repeat owners happy with prompt, capable small work. A very few keep some large, key trades in house, like concrete, because on large projects, those trades (ability, price, availability) are key to successful schedules. Last, some specialty general contractors keep a wide variety of trades in house because they keep doing the same type of limited scope work and would rather control the trades, take a bit of risk of higher overhead but not be paying someone else’s profit constantly- I see this in some contractors who do things like water treatment, paving, etc. Mostly, we don’t see a “choice” on whether the contractor has in-house crews or not, and it’s rarely material to us if they do or not.
General Construction Phase Comments
CM should be required to bid against the others for any of the work they wish to self perform. Having a CM self perform is often a benefit to the overall schedule and project management. Lots of focus on “design errors” in this section. Everyone makes mistakes, including design teams. However, in a good CM relationship, there are fewer accusations of design error because everyone is fully aware of the intentions, the schedule, etc. From the design side, because there are additional eyes on the process all along, there are fewer opportunities to inadvertently leave out information. From the CM point of view, he has an opportunity at numerous points in the process to evaluate the packages and ask questions, filling in any blanks or confusing information. The CM is expected, because a GMP is prepared prior to completion of the documents, to be carrying some contingency to fill in the “blank spaces” in the design and then they remain participants in the process of completing the design and documents. More is known throughout the process so there are simply fewer reasons to look for financial help to cover the unknowns. The Owner will be sufficiently involved to truly understand the implications of late changes and shortened schedules throughout the process. And the Owner will need to carry a reasonable contingency, which will vary depending on how early the GMP is set.
Any other comments? ___________________________________
[Our state] has been ahead of the curve for public CMAR vertical construction. It has been difficult for A/E’s since there is a loss of “control” on the project. I believe it has increased costs, but has reduced the claim rate after project close-out. In the end, the good GC’s are still good, and the bad GC’s are starting to wake up.
Why isn't the A/E held liable for a portion of the risk of design errors? PLUS With close to 30 years in the subcontractor market, both in the field and management, it is my opinion that the CM projects with the highest degree of success for both the owner and contractors all have one thing in common. The owner's representative has to have the power to exercise his decisions. When the owner appoints a rep he needs to report to the owner's president or CEO. This enables him to make a decision without the fear of losing his job or getting mired in the muck of interoffice politics. This lack of indecision from the very top is what creates the very first step of efficiency and in the end will bring a project in under budget and ahead of schedule. Every job with a owner's "team" has been extremely cumbersome.
I believe CMR is a better delivery system. It helps if the Architect can be a part of the selection committee in selecting the CMR. This would help to achieve a good “match”. The CMR needs to do a better job of conceptual cost estimating. This is the No. 1 problem at the moment. The CMR needs to pay the subs during pre-construction. It is difficult to get a sub interested if he’s not getting paid. He’s already busy doing “paid” work. I fear the subs aren’t giving our job the attention is deserves.
Self-performing concrete and some other subs is fine, especially with the allocations of concrete recently.
Question M. is totally dependant on the project and the CMR’s capabilities – no generalization can be made. L. often times there is not a venue to contract for those long lead items early enough because the CMR portion doesn’t convert to construction early enough.
I have had 2 different experiences with CMAR; one positive and one negative. I based my answers on the positive experience only.